Re: Oval racing, my point

"JC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:89j6fo$do9$[email hidden]... > NASCAR is the most popular racing series in the world (measured by real > people attending events). 400,000 at the Brickyard can't be wrong. And "Do You Want to be a Millionaire?" is the most popular game show in history, but that doesn't make it great television. -- don [|]-(_)-[|]

Why is it still called the "International" Race of Champions when it obviously geared towards one segment of the sport? The IROC turned into a slick tool of network television and NASCAR a long time ago. -- don [|]-(_)-[|] "daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to say > has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: > > IROC > > How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The series > is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racers competing > in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possible that > oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set? It > is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course, but > if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them > there? > > ~daxe > >

>>The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another andif I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACORT and about 10 of them on ovals, so the thing is : Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" >> oh, boy. ok, i'm not calling you a name here, but.... this shows an incredible unfamilarity with the subject at hand, and (IMO) virtually disqualifies you from having an "informed opinion". When you have time, just look at the track layouts (pictures) of Indianapolis, Michigan, Nazareth, Darlington, Bristol, Pocono, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Daytona. Or- since this is rec.autos.simulators- try a lap at each in a sim. They couldn't be more different!! The primary differences among ovals are: 1) track length -probably the most obvious one (which you completely ignore in your post). Oval racetracks range from 0.5mile (or even a bit less) up to 2.66 miles around. This makes a huge difference in both how the tracks themselves are driven and how one must approach the race itself in terms of pit strategy and racing style (physical bumping & grinding on short tracks to close aerodynamic drafting on large ones, etc.), two different things in oval racing which are too often the same in road racing- (not to disparage road racing as I love F1, CART, etc.). 2) track layout- the arrangement of the turns within the distance. Indianapolis, Daytona and Pocono are all2.5 miles around, but they could hardly be more different. Sadly, there are too many "cookie-cutter" tracks that all look like Charlotte out there these days, but road racing is hardly immune to *that* malady- if i hear that one more great old circuit has been emasculated by another chicane, i'll choke- but rest assured that ovals have character. 3) banking/tarmac... ok, i'm not supposed to mention these. they're not that important on TV anyway (well, large differences in banking ARE- notice the difference between a Martinsville and a Bristol, for example, but that goes more to track layout)- so i see your point about why we're not supposed to mention it. It is hard to tell the difference between Texas and Charlotte, I agree. But bear in mind that- to the driver and engineer- a few bumps here and there or a few degrees of banking make a great deal of difference in both setup and driving style/line. Point being that there are challenges in oval racing that you have clearly not considered.... just as a summary, you can see descriptions of most of the NASCAR-sanctioned tracks at http://www.nascar.com/tracks/ clicking on the links should give you a picture.... the differences are blantently obvious. As a driver, you may be surprised at the skill required to be consistently fast on an oval. I've only done a little karting, but i've always heard this (which seems to agree with personal observation): it's easy to run respectably fast on an oval with good equipment and some driving skill. But it really does take a special ability to run *really* fast. Plenty of throttle control, feel, etc. The ability to conserve tires and fuel. Running quickly with a car whose setup is not quite right. Understanding the changes to a racetrack with weather and rubber buildup (oval tracks are *extremely* sensitive to such environmental conditions, making each race different from a driving and setup perspective). There's alot of skill involved in setting up a car, and providing feedback to one's mechanics. Just don't discount the driving skill required, despite the fact that it may be different from that required for road racing. As to the rest of your post, I couldn't respond to all of it in a short space....except to say that, to a large extent, oval racing is a different animal, with different rules of conduct. If you can take it for what it is, you may enjoy it. It isn't for everyone. But before making sweeping statements or passing judgement- or even forming an opinion- you might want to learn something about it. If you keep an open mind, you may like it.

don hodgdon <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:89khov$7hj$[email hidden]... > Why is it still called the "International" Race of Champions when it > obviously geared towards one segment of the sport? The IROC turned into a > slick tool of network television and NASCAR a long time ago. I think if there were more racers from different genres willing to participate in IROC it might have a different flavor. I understand that the champions from most racing series are invited to participate, but many refuse. It would be a lot of fun to see M. Schumacher running against D. Earnhardt, don't you think? ~daxe

LL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DPhv4.1747$[email hidden]... > Because even if it is very easy I can kick the ass of Schumacher on > GPL...because I do it always and he doesn't.... > > But even if I train in his ferrari for 1 year (oh yes) I will never beathim > there, because he is just better.. But wait...ovals are nothing but straights and left hand corners, right? Doesn't Michael Schumacher take left turns and go down straight roads in F1? If the answer is yes, then it would seem he already has lots of practice running in a situation that is limited to those two things and he should excel automatically. While I doubt you would get any argument that MS is a better driver than, say, Dale Earnhardt (including from DE himself), it is quite possible he might not have the right combination of skills that would make him good at NASCAR. Try it for yourself. Get your favorite F1 sim and run a full length race. It's exhausting mentally and physically. Then, put on your a NASCAR sim and run a full-length race at Talledega. You will be mentally and physically exhausted after that race too, but for different reasons. The frantic pace of driving on an F1 circuit at speed and negotiating all those corners requires a very different type of concentration and intensity than flawlessly completing repeated fast laps on a NASCAR oval. There have been a few successful road racers who entered NASCAR and none of them has fared very well. I just don't think it is fair or accurate to characterize the demands of NASCAR racing as some kind of inferior subset of the skills necessary to compete in road racing. ~daxe

Mike Laskey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:s6ev4.11814 >you really have to say the successful > road course driver is likely to be the most capable driver. I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to say has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: IROC How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The series is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racers competing in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possible that oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set? It is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course, but if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them there? ~daxe

I quote Jeff Gordon when he squeezed somebody (Burton??) up into the wall to win the Winston Million: "A million dollars, baby. What the hell did you expect me to do?" Definately not for wusses, I agree. Jan. ---- James Wohlever <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On the following date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:55:25 GMT, said person(s) > "LL" <[email hidden]> stated: ><snip>

Quoted text (9 lines)

> It's not that common. > If your in first and you see that number 3 take the inside lane, you > had better be able to go faster or he is going to let you personally > meet the wall. > Besides, old Dale as calmed down in later years. Been awhile since he > broke in a hotshot rookie. > A few bangs into the walls are good for them. Toughens them up. > > NASCAR, Whimps not welcome.

>Definately not for wusses, I agree. I agree. Although, Burton was on the inside of him, so he didn't knock him into the wall. Now that's what makes it exciting. A last lap mad dash to the finish. I know the drivers hate restrictor plate tracks, but having been to Talladega it's the best racing I've ever seen. Racer X Veteran Sim Racer Victory Lane- http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/

And people wonder why we jumped on the Mayflower:)

On the following date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:55:25 GMT, said person(s) "LL" <[email hidden]> stated: >Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the >banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" But it is. Take Darlington for example. There is no way you can race Darlington like Dega. Nor could you race bristol like Darlington. Each track has it's own personality and each takes its own way of handling. Sometimes each tracks turns have to be handled differently. At Michigan turns 1 and 2 can be taken about 10 to 20 mph faster than turns 3 and 4. >On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to >look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, VERY >different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, >and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). You could say that. But then were getting down to the nitty gritty. How many turns does it take for a track to be considered harder? 6, 8, 20? I think once you learn a track the amount of turns doesn't mean that much. At Laguna Seca in SCGT I have that track memorized.. I can fly through it. But a Hockiem (sp?) it has far less turns but yet I have more trouble with it because Idon;t know it well. >Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" >wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, >doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the nascar >trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to get a >good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on the track >and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. Now what a sec. The first of this statement leads us to believe that NASCAR has badguys that push goodguys into the wall. yet you just said you get this problem all the time in Europe. So it's not a NASCAR thing. >By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his >black car... Yep, that's why he is called "The Intimidator" He got that name because he did that. If what he did was common practice he would not have gotten that nick. So that makes the above statement false. Just because one or two drivers are more aggressive doesn't spoil the whole sport. It adds personality. We give pet names to the drivers here. Rusty "Whining" Wallace because he always whines after losing. Swerving' Ernie Irvan (Retired) because he would crash a lot. Jeff "Pooh Boy" Gordon because he crys and sniffles if he wrecks someone and etc... >I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody >else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby... It's not that common. If your in first and you see that number 3 take the inside lane, you had better be able to go faster or he is going to let you personally meet the wall. Besides, old Dale as calmed down in later years. Been awhile since he broke in a hotshot rookie. A few bangs into the walls are good for them. Toughens them up. NASCAR, Whimps not welcome. - James "Gunslinger" Wohlever [email hidden] Techware Computer Services http://techware.gtinsider.com Send ATTACHMENTS (Files) to: [email hidden]

On the following date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:43:18 +1100, said person(s) "Stephen Colbourne" <[email hidden]> stated: >I think F1 is the better TV sport. Nascar the best live. The two driving >styles are almost totally opposite. BINGO, hit the nail on the head. For TV, yes NASCAR for the average Joe sucks. But, if your into NASCAR and ever been to a race or race NASCAR 3 then you watch it on TV you get a whole different perspective. You get to see the strategy in pitting, in waiting until lap so and so for car 4 to overtake car 6. Its not all about putting the pedal to the floor and turning left. Its bout approaching turn 3. You got a car on your right door, you got a car on your left quarter panel... your approaching that turn.. what you gonna do.. slow down and let both cars overtake you? Drop down and try to keep the guy on the left behind you hoping you down hit him on the process? Stay the line and hope the guy above you backs off? And each driver is facing that same type of problems for each turn. Then, you come out of turn 4 into the straightaway.. you got 15 laps of gas left.. Do you pit now and hope a yellow comes out soon.. if so you won;t have to pit and can take the lead.. but will you be able to stay on the track until the finish? Will an accident happen so you can jump into the pits with 5 laps left? Your coming down the back straight... your spotter suddenly calls out wreck on the back straight.. you see a cloud of smoke.. and that's all you see.. Do you go high hoping whoever wreck spun low.. or do you go low thinking the guy smacked the upper wall.. You get to the smoke cloud pretty fast as your doing 190+ You cant see squat.. you here a car screaming out of control.. then right in front of you.. a car is going sideways.. you hit the breaks.. fighting the wheel.. you hold the line down low and come out the smoke... you look in your rear view mirror to see that the #5 car that has been hounding you for the last 20 laps wasn't so lucky.. there he sits up against the wall after loosing a tire from hitting the car you just missed. 2 laps left.. you and the 1st place are neck and neck.. through turns 1 and 2 you stay neck and neck.. every time you get into a passing situation he gets a little more ump. Last lap, the white flag is flying.. your hands are sweating like crazy.. you come out of turn 2 with a good line. you dive down to the apex.. oooh boy he slightly over corrected.. you get beside his door.. you look over.. he is fighting for everything he has got.. but you have the inside line... turns 3 and 4 he stays right along side you.. as you come out of turn 4 into that last straight to the finish you ride up high.. 2 inches apart.. hoping to make him back off.. slowly, so very slowly your inching ahead.. checkered flag... its gonna be close... did I? did he? All of a sudden you hear your spotter screaming for joy.. you crossed the finished about 6 inches in front of him!!! Your throw you hand out the window and wave to the fans as you do your victory lap.... Now come on, that doesn't sound like fun? - James "Gunslinger" Wohlever [email hidden] Techware Computer Services http://techware.gtinsider.com Send ATTACHMENTS (Files) to: [email hidden]

Just my opinion. I love all types of racing with few exceptions . Each style of racing is a separate entity that needs a different and unique style. I must say though, that by your reasoning, drag racing must make Nascar look like the most exciting sport in the world, and yet millions turn out to watch them run a quarter mile in a straight line. One more thing. If road courses are the most demanding and need the most talent, why then do Nascar guys always win the IROC championship? They must know something that the sporty car guys don't. And that is - how to race on an oval. Mike

I am English and think that F1 is definately the most interesting sport to follow with all cars being different and arguably the best drivers in the world. BUT when it comes to watching a race live at the track, the OVALS defiantely have a great advantage. You can be seated and have a view of the whole track. You will not miss any incident. With 40+ cars racing past the noise is amazing. As far as the driver is concerned the ovals require great precision and very smooth movements combined with ultra quick reactions due to other drivers mistakes. F1 requires a keen spectator to walk for miles to get the full enjoyment of the track. You always seem to be in the wrong place when something happens F1 is really a hot lap contest until overtaking is required when it almost becomes a game of nerve. I think F1 is the better TV sport. Nascar the best live. The two driving styles are almost totally opposite. Personally I prefer F1 for the drivers personal enjoyment, but I can see the enjoyment to be gained on an oval. Th difference between a good driver and bad at an oval is a fraction of a second while at an F1 track it is between 5 seconds at a short track to several minutes at somewhere like the Nurburg Ring, really showing the best drivers clearly. It is much more satisfying to see your lap times drop by this amount. -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Dear LL, Your question (and conclusions) are pretty much the same as asking why anyone would possibly like to watch Cricket over Baseball -- sort of like saying that American Baseball requires much more skill than Cricket and is therefore an inferior sport. I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about would argue that F! drivers are not the best in the world. They'd better be -- they're driving the most expensive and fastest vehicles on the planet. Whether or not F1 is a "better" sport than any other form of racing is, however, purely subjective. I used to think that F1 was an exciting sport. I don't any more. It usually ends up being a parade around ultra-tight, chicane-ridden courses where passing amongst the frontrunners almost invariably occurs during pit stops. I still watch it, but it's just not the same. I'd rather watch touring cars or superbikes. > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > of them on ovals, so the thing is : Actually, there are 34 races in Winston Cup and only two are run on road courses (at Watkins Glen and Sears Point) > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" I know you don't want to be told, but facts are facts. Except for a couple of breaks during the season, races are run every week. The ovals do vary drastically. The lengths, bankings, surfaces, and yes, configuration varies from track to track. Each track requires different strategies in fuel and tire management and in some cases brake management. The frantic frammin' and bammin' of Martinsvlle is quite different from the strategic restrictor-plate racing of Talladega or Daytona. My understanding of these factors makes watching the races every week far from a bit of the same. > On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to > look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, VERY > different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, > and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). Every track (or corner) in F1 looks different to you because you're thoroughly familiar with all of the courses. To people who are unfamiliar with Grand Prix, or are just casual watchers, TI Aida looks like Interlagos which looks like Barcelona which looks like Hungaroring, etc.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" > wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, > doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the nascar > trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to get a > good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on the track > and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. > > By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his > black car... > > I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody > else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby...

NASCAR certainly has its share of unseemly nudging, but they're nowhere near as bad as British and Australian touring car racers. At times these races make a NASCAR race look like a funeral procession. Seems to me even F1 drivers are guilty of this. (Schumacher, Hill and Senna have all put somebody off in the quest for the championship, and there are many many others in F1 history.) > Once again thank you for your answers, even if we don't agree we can respect > each other's positions here and this is not always the case on the net. I certainly respect your opinion. But what I don't understand is why you feel the need, no matter how subtlely you do it, to scoff at oval track racing. Comparing NASCAR to F1 is like comparing American football to European Soccer. It makes no sense. They are completely different sports, requiring different skills, equipment, and venues. That it all looks the same to you is due to your unfamiliarity with the sport. In my younger days, I used to feel the same way. I looked down my nose at the roundy-track racers with their hulking beasts and huge V8s and necks of color. I thought only Formula One and International sports car racing was worth watching and all else was merely amateur city. But as I became older and more familiar with motor racing, however, I grew to enjoy all forms of racing. Once I understood the particular sport, whether it was sprint car racing, World Rally, Trials, motocross, or drag racing, I could appreciate the skill and appeal of each type of motorsport much more. I have my favorites, of course, but I gave up pooh-poohing others' sports a long time ago. Not only does it smack of elitest snobbery, but it's ignorant as well. I can't stand American Basketball. I just can't see how hard it is for a seven-foot guy to put a ball into a basket that's only ten feet off the ground. My opinion is based on total ignorance. My opinion does not make the sport inferior to any other except in my own ill-informed mind. I think that if you took the time to understand NASCAR Racing, although you may still not like it, you wouldn't pass it off as casually as you do now. -- Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

Isn`t everyone rather jumping on this guy a bit. All he wanted to know was what people saw in Oval racing. He didn`t say it was rubbish. He just wanted to know what everyone else thught. I find nascar extremely dull to watch on TV but often enjoy the oval cart races. The passing always appears ( Please not I say APPEARS :-) ) to be too easy and doesn`t add to the race. I realise that it's all about tactics and that the drivers aren`t completely useless but I often feel that it's more about drivers enjoying themselves than giving a good show. Of course I've never seen a live race so it could actually be much more exciting in the flesh ( I live in the UK so chances of me seeing one are fairly slim) but to a UK tv viewer like me it seems dull as hell. Matt

First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting the temptation to call me names. The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 of them on ovals, so the thing is : Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, VERY different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the nascar trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to get a good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on the track and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his black car... I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby... Once again thank you for your answers, even if we don't agree we can respect each other's positions here and this is not always the case on the net.

You have another believer right here. NASCAR is not racing. Watching cars drive around on an oval seems very monotonous. I cannot see the sport in this at all. I say put them on a road course and leave them there. Just what is the sport in " put it to the floor and steer to the left " ? And why are they called stock cars? There is nothing stock about a stock car. I have a lot more respect for Touring Car and Rally Car racers than I ever will for a NASCAR driver. I raced Supersport and Superbike Suzuki GSXR's for several years and road courses really show skill. NASCAR just seems to be a freight train going around and around. I'll take Schumacher and Colin McCrae over Jeff Gordon anyday. Dave Pawlikowski [email hidden] http://www.cushdrive.com/ > First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resistingthe

Quoted text (12 lines)

> temptation to call me names. > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" >

Well... oval racing can be boring when watching it on TV but when your in the driver's seat it's anything but boring. You are constantly fighting for position, and fender rubbing to get up front. Yes "pushing the good guy out" isn't always fair but those fenders aren't there for nothing:-) Just look at the BTCC (British Touring Car Championship) they race only on road courses but they are rougher than NASCAR. All the action they create during a race keeps us fans "fired up" and makes us want to come back for more. The same goes for NASCAR and oval racing. Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good Formula One race but ever since Ayrton Senna died, and Mansell and Prost retired it just hasn't been as exciting. Thanks, Aaron Markham *Kart44* LL wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting the > temptation to call me names. > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" > > On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to > look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, VERY > different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, > and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). > > Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" > wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, > doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the nascar > trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to get a > good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on the track > and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. > > By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his > black car... > > I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody > else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby... > > Once again thank you for your answers, even if we don't agree we can respect > each other's positions here and this is not always the case on the net.

The operative word is "DRAMA". You've got heroes, you've got villains, you've got bit players, you've got underdogs. The whole race is one long unravelling plot. The whole season is one long unravelling storyline. And to understand what makes it interesting you have to have some grasp of, not only the history of NASCAR itself, but the story behind each team and each driver. It also makes it more interesting if you understand what each driver is going through inside the car, and that is helped by such simulations as Nascar3. If you've ever been in an online race in N3, or a number of these races on different tracks, you'd get some idea of what makes oval track racing interesting. The tracks ARE different. And that, too, is part of what makes watching them enjoyable. It can be boring at times, especially when the winner is predictable. It can be annoying, too, as you say, when a certain Dale...driving a number 88 car...hits the leader out of the way on the last lap in order to win, but, like when you're watching a film, there's nothing you can do about it. I LOVE NASCAR!!!!!!!! LL wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting the > temptation to call me names. > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" > > On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to > look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, VERY > different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, > and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). > > Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" > wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, > doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the nascar > trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to get a > good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on the track > and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. > > By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his > black car... > > I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody > else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby... > > Once again thank you for your answers, even if we don't agree we can respect > each other's positions here and this is not always the case on the net.

So Martinsville looks the same as Michigan and Indy is the same as Nazareth! Come on guys! My advice is get yourself a copy of NASCAR 3, get online and tell me all NASCAR tracks are the same and NASCAR racing is monotonous. NASCAR is the most popular racing series in the world (measured by real people attending events). 400,000 at the Brickyard can't be wrong. By guess is that Mr. Gow and the BTCC would love to have a tenth of that attendance! 12 front line cars - hardly the sign of a healthy series... Just wait till ASCAR starts up in Britain - then we'll see some real racing! Just my opinion... Superdave <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0a7v4.232$[email hidden]... > You have another believer right here. NASCAR is not racing. Watching cars > drive around on an oval seems very monotonous. I cannot see the sport in > this at all. I say put them on a road course and leave them there. Justwhat

Quoted text (20 lines)

> is the sport in " put it to the floor and steer to the left " ? > > And why are they called stock cars? There is nothing stock about a stock > car. I have a lot more respect for Touring Car and Rally Car racers than I > ever will for a NASCAR driver. > > I raced Supersport and Superbike Suzuki GSXR's for several years and road > courses really show skill. NASCAR just seems to be a freight train going > around and around. > > I'll take Schumacher and Colin McCrae over Jeff Gordon anyday. > > Dave Pawlikowski [email hidden] > http://www.cushdrive.com/ > > > First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting > the > > temptation to call me names. > > > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another

and > > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about10 > > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval tracksomewhere > > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the sametexture" > > > > >

There is no question that NASCAR oval racing is not at the same level of skill or sophistication as CART of F1, but every oval IS different and they each require different driving skills and techniques to master. I enjoy WATCHING CART first, then F1 then NASCAR. I enjoy sim racing NASCAR equally to the others because, due to the lower skill level involved, I actually have a chance to be involved in a real race for the whole length of the race (sweaty palms, etc.). Performing an awesome GPL flying lap where every turn and braking point is well executed is far more satisfying than cutting a bit off my best time of an oval lap in N3, but the racing is much more accessible. I was, like you, not interested in watching NASCAR races on TV until AFTER I got N2...then I realised that there was a lot more skill involved than it looked like in TV. It still isn't CART or F1, but it makes for great sim racing. Go buy N3 or NL and find out for yourself!! Marc. "LL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hO5v4.1655$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting the > temptation to call me names. > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" > > On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to > look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different,

VERY > different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, > and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). > > Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" > wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, > doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like thenascar

Quoted text (11 lines)

> trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to get a > good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on the track > and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. > > By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his > black car... > > I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody > else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby... > > Once again thank you for your answers, even if we don't agree we can

respect > each other's positions here and this is not always the case on the net. > > > >

It's like this - If you don't like it, don't watch (or play)! Those who do, see the differences in each track and enjoy the door-to-door action. Sometimes there are as many as 20 lead changes in a race. Last weekend during the race at Rockingham (I think it was around lap 220) there were four cars fighting for the lead running side by side three wide sometimes. If you're not into it, then this won't get you excited. If you are - you will be on the edge of your seat! I myselft enjoy many forms of racing. I watch Nascar, F1, GP500, and Rally. Every form of racing has it's good and bad points. I am content to take the good with the bad. Of course that doesn't mean each of these forms of racing should not strive for improvement. I think sometimes it is like having to take one step back before realizing th benifites of changes that eventually take things two steps forward. --David Cook LL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hO5v4.1655$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting the > temptation to call me names. > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else.

Very well put, Marc. On-line racing action is a big part of the enjoyment we get out of these games. This is exactly why I race Monster Truck Madness 2 online. Monster trucks are very 'out of character' for me. But the online racing action is very good. Plus my kids love Monster Trucks and every time I win a race or Team GTX wins a tourney, I'm a hero with the wee ones. Of course, it helps that the game has an excellent mult-player interface. N3 has it's own set of challenges. When I have more time to spend with it, I hope to learn better setups and figure out how to use the draft to shoot by Dale the way he goes by me. Slot Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bR9v4.14226$[email hidden]... > There is no question that NASCAR oval racing is not at the same level of > skill or sophistication as CART of F1, but every oval IS different andthey > each require different driving skills and techniques to master. > > I enjoy WATCHING CART first, then F1 then NASCAR. I enjoy sim racingNASCAR > equally to the others because, due to the lower skill level involved, I > actually have a chance to be involved in a real race for the whole lengthof > the race (sweaty palms, etc.). Performing an awesome GPL flying lap where > every turn and braking point is well executed is far more satisfying than > cutting a bit off my best time of an oval lap in N3, but the racing ismuch > more accessible. > > I was, like you, not interested in watching NASCAR races on TV until AFTERI

Quoted text (10 lines)

> got N2...then I realised that there was a lot more skill involved than it > looked like in TV. It still isn't CART or F1, but it makes for great sim > racing. Go buy N3 or NL and find out for yourself!! > > Marc. > > > "LL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:hO5v4.1655$[email hidden]... > > First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting

the > > temptation to call me names. > > > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like anotherand > > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about10 > > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval tracksomewhere > > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the sametexture" > > > > On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibilityto > > look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, > VERY > > different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from thedriver, > > and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). > > > > Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "badguy" > > wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, > > doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the > nascar > > trucks) I get this problem all the time when you are working HARD to geta > > good setup, the driver is doing his best to go fast and stay on thetrack

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > and some asshole kicks you out in the last lap. > > > > By "bad guy" on NASCAR I refer to a certain Dale with a number 3 on his > > black car... > > > > I understand that for the "show" it is fun to see somebody push somebody > > else but this is CAR RACING not boxing or demolition derby... > > > > Once again thank you for your answers, even if we don't agree we can > respect > > each other's positions here and this is not always the case on the net. > > > > > > > > > >

Superdave <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0a7v4.232$[email hidden]... > > I'll take Schumacher and Colin McCrae over Jeff Gordon anyday. I'll take a bike racer over a car racer any day too. > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the sametexture" > > Well, there are about 3 very different types of oval: superspeedways, speedways... and Bristol, but I would have to agree that within these categories there really isn't much of a significant difference between the tracks. As to whether it is a spectacle of racing, I guess that's one's own opinion. My racing experience is limited to go-karts, but I know that the challenge of an oval is very much different to that of a road circuit... and for proof of one's ability to race, you really have to say the successful road course driver is likely to be the most capable driver. Mike.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:22:31 +1100, Buzz O'Dea <[email hidden]> wrote: >The operative word is "DRAMA". You've got heroes, you've got villains, you've >got bit players, you've got underdogs. The whole race is one long unravelling >plot. The whole season is one long unravelling storyline. And to understand what >makes it interesting you have to have some grasp of, not only the history of >NASCAR itself, but the story behind each team and each driver. It also makes it I always chuckled at the comments before, but you seem to give credibility to the posts that compare NASCAR with WWF "wrestling." BTW, shouldn't the acronym be NACAR these days? >more interesting if you understand what each driver is going through inside the >car, and that is helped by such simulations as Nascar3. If you've ever been in >an online race in N3, or a number of these races on different tracks, you'd get >some idea of what makes oval track racing interesting. The tracks ARE different. I realize that ovals are different, and that racing in packs that are so close is quite difficult, but it then seems more like watching formation aerobatics as they fly around and around. NASCAR needs more road courses, IMHO. If these cars are supposed to resemble street cars (which they in no way do), why not race on courses that somewhat resemble what people drive on ('cept the tourists that get stuck on the roundabouts)? >at times, especially when the winner is predictable. It can be annoying, too, as >you say, when a certain Dale...driving a number 88 car...hits the leader out of >the way on the last lap in order to win, but, like when you're watching a film, There's a difference between fighting for position and defending your racing line, and simply punting someone who can't do a thing from behind. What can a driver to do to prevent being smacked/spun out of the race when leading? Slam on the brakes and hope the annoying one rearends you? >there's nothing you can do about it. I LOVE NASCAR!!!!!!!! I watched the Sear's Point race on TV last year, and though it was interesting (though the cars look ungainly, wallowing around as they do), but can't watch an oval for more than a few minutes...

Race1530 wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >Just my opinion. >I love all types of racing with few exceptions Same here. IRL and Drag Racing would be the exceptions for me >why then do Nascar guys always win the IROC championship? They must >know something that the sporty car guys don't. >And that is - how to race on an oval. Nicely put Mike

So I remembered the driver, but not the move... doh! ;-)) Jan. ---- Target 12 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >Definately not for wusses, I agree. > > I agree. > > Although, Burton was on the inside of him, so he didn't knock him into the > wall. <snip>

Because even if it is very easy I can kick the ass of Schumacher on GPL...because I do it always and he doesn't.... But even if I train in his ferrari for 1 year (oh yes) I will never beat him there, because he is just better.. "daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Mike Laskey <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:s6ev4.11814 > >you really have to say the successful > > road course driver is likely to be the most capable driver. > > I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to

say > has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: > > IROC > > How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? Theseries > is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racerscompeting > in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possiblethat > oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set?It > is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course,but > if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them > there? > > ~daxe > >

Great point. Euro cars (as I call them, CART, IRL etc) are built primarily for speed, they're basically little rockets on wheels requiring great skill to tame. Due to the incredible speeds they can achieve the races come down to running hot laps to beat a clock, basically. The cars aren't built for much contact and the slightest wrong touch and bam, disaster. It takes incredible concentration to remember all the proper braking points, preferred lines around turns etc and to make the car do them. NASCAR tries (the operative word here being 'tries') to keep a 'level' playing field where all the cars are supposed to be 'equal'. It then comes down to driver skill against other drivers and other teams as pit crews play a primary role in a teams success, look at Gordon and the Rainbow Warriors who all defected to DJ's team. So the drivers are basically in a contest against one another, down to the checkers. So what you have in effect is door to door, sometimes physical driving and physical sports are something Americans love. Oval racing requires steely nerves, concentration to keep your line and save your tires and awareness of other drivers and boldness to make moves. Euro style racing requires steely nerves, concentration to run your line around the track and save tires, remember braking points at all turns etc and if you can keep that up you will get an opportunity to pass. What it boils down to in essence is: NASCAR is mano e mano (man vs. man) Euro style is mano e clocko... :) (man vs the clock) Just my .025 cents... daxe wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Mike Laskey <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:s6ev4.11814 > >you really have to say the successful > > road course driver is likely to be the most capable driver. > > I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to say > has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: > > IROC > > How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The series > is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racers competing > in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possible that > oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set? It > is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course, but > if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them > there? > > ~daxe

Becasue it is the international race of champions, you see those indy people racing on a simple track against nascar people, and the cars are equal and rotated based opon previous finishes, and because who would want to watch race where the cars fall apart if you breathe on them the wrong way don hodgdon wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> Why is it still called the "International" Race of Champions when it > obviously geared towards one segment of the sport? The IROC turned into a > slick tool of network television and NASCAR a long time ago. > > -- > don > > [|]-(_)-[|] > > "daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to > say > > has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: > > > > IROC > > > > How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The > series > > is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racers > competing > > in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possible > that > > oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set? > It > > is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course, > but > > if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them > > there? > > > > ~daxe > > > >

>So Martinsville looks the same as Michigan and Indy is the same as Nazareth! >Come on guys! >My advice is get yourself a copy of NASCAR 3, get online and tell me all >NASCAR tracks are the same and NASCAR racing is monotonous. on announcing that the patch for Nascar 3 will have RS-Shifter support I took a download of the demo of Nascar today. I have never been into oval racing before being from europe and not ever seeing any and avoiding it on TV because it looks monotonous. anyway i loaded the game up and i loved it, i couldnt believe i was just driving in circles and it was fun. so i must admit after today i'm a convert, though to be honest i'm still not sure it appeals to me to watch it on tv. anyway thats my bit. Rich [link lost in import]

if it comes down to oval drivers beating road drivers, well don't you remember a certain nigel mansell coming from formula 1 in his first season of indycar, he won the championship and he'd never raced on an oval before that season. an exception to the rule ? http://come.to/rs-shifter

OK, I won't. Your mind is made up on NASCAR, so no sense in trying to change it. Yeah, that never happens in, for example, F1. It never happened when Michael Schumacher took out Damon Hill at Adelaide to retain the championship. It never happened when Schumacher drove into Villeneuve to prevent Jaques from winning the championship. It never happened when Senna drove into Prost at Suzuka to win the championship. It never happened when Senna drove into Mansell at the final race in Adelaide, right before Mansell made the move to CART. I could go on, but "some ***" kicking you out on the last lap only happens in NASCAR, apparently.

: IROC : How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The series : is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racers competing : in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possible that : oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set? It : is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course, but : if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them : there? I recall an interview with a top-level road racer (forget who) who ran in IROC a few years ago and admitted he was genuinely afraid. He could put in a decent qualifying lap, but running with the pack was a very uncomfortable experience for him. He said that the skills are very different. Stephen

: The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and : if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 : of them on ovals, so the thing is : : Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere : and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. : Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the : banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" I grew up with Nascar in the days of Petty, Yarborough, Pearson etc., back when we just saw Daytona on TV. To me, Nascar was flat out racing on a big, fast, *** oval. Lots of spills, thrills and close finishes. I still seem to remember Petty and Pearson tangling and spinning out on the last lap, then one of them (Pearson I think) managing to drag his lump of shit across the line first. The attraction is partly a childhood familiarity then. I lost interest through the 80s and early 90s, and my F1 interest picked up. Again, I had childhood memories of Hunt, Scheckter etc. racing at Monaco, the only race we saw. F1 took over and introduced me to racing sims. Papyrus's Nascar 1 brought me back to the big, thundery cars. I still find it rather dull to watch a race on TV, actually, but quite fun to race on the computer. The control required is significant, and the satisfaction of a clean pass (or not so clean) is as high as in the F1 sims. : On TV it all looks very much the same for me when I get the possibility to : look at it, in F1 or any other circuit race every corner is different, VERY : different and therefore it requires (I think) more skill from the driver, : and more strengh (in terms of physical condition). The current dumbing down of F1 tracks has reduced many of them to the same type of corners. Once you get the braking points, they're very similar. There are only a handful of difficult corners, or at least unique ones, like Eau Rouge. There are several unique corners in the Nascar series. But in broad terms, I would divide the ovals into short and long for me in terms of what it takes to drive them. To drive them *really* well, you need to see the subtle differences between them all. : Also one bad thing about nascar (I think) is that sometimes the "bad guy" : wins by pushing the "good guy" out, since I work in motorsports myself, : doing some truck racing (real trucks in Europe, not pickups like the nascar Senna and Prost? Schumacher and Hill? Schumacher and Villeneuve? Stephen

I would like to point out that there are no non-US drivers in NASCAR because it's so juicy (money) that it is NOT POSSIBLE to get in if you don't have a 20 year history in US motor racing. I seriusly doubt the driving skills of NASCAR/CART drivers as opposed to F1 drivers... I base myself on the fact that everytime a CART drivers comes to F1 he doesn't have fantastic results (expect for villeneuve after 3 years in the best F1 car...), on the other hand F1 guys going to CART (because they can't go to INDY) are more often "good". Stefan Johnasson was a "middle to end" level driver in F1, never won a race....Fittipaldi was "middle to top", Mansell was good, Zanardi is the best example, when he came back from CARt he was lost in F1, and you can't say that it was the car which was bad because he was trashed by his teammate which is the best reference since he has the same car. If NASCAR drivers were so good they would go to other racing categories and kick ass. 1 exception to this rule Mario ADRETTI (I didn't even mention Michael). See my point, NASCAR is SHOW, more SHOW than SERIOUS race...but it's good because i think the maerican audience is more interested in SHOW than about technical edge performance... besides that *** YOU GEORGE BUSH JUNIOR, Odell BUSH didn't do it, *** YOU SORRY EXCUSE FOR A MAN !!!! > Because even if it is very easy I can kick the ass of Schumacher on > GPL...because I do it always and he doesn't.... > But even if I train in his ferrari for 1 year (oh yes) I will never beat him

Quoted text (32 lines)

> there, because he is just better.. > > >you really have to say the successful > > > road course driver is likely to be the most capable driver. > > I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to > say > > has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: > > IROC > > How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The > series > > is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racers > competing > > in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possible > that > > oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set? > It > > is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course, > but > > if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them > > there? > > ~daxe

Isn't that the same with an offline training mode race in GPL compared to an online race in a league race? I really feel bad when I hit someone during an important online race, and I feel even a lot worse when someone hits me :) It takes lots of effort to concentrate on both the ideal line AND concentrate on all the other cars around. Definately scaring for me! Andre

Ok, you got me James, gonna install Nascar 3 again tonight :) Andre On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:30:12 -0500, James Wohlever

Quoted text (69 lines)

>On the following date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:43:18 +1100, said person(s) >>I think F1 is the better TV sport. Nascar the best live. The two driving >>styles are almost totally opposite. >BINGO, hit the nail on the head. >For TV, yes NASCAR for the average Joe sucks. >But, if your into NASCAR and ever been to a race or race NASCAR 3 then >you watch it on TV you get a whole different perspective. >You get to see the strategy in pitting, in waiting until lap so and so >for car 4 to overtake car 6. >Its not all about putting the pedal to the floor and turning left. >Its bout approaching turn 3. You got a car on your right door, you got >a car on your left quarter panel... your approaching that turn.. what >you gonna do.. slow down and let both cars overtake you? >Drop down and try to keep the guy on the left behind you hoping you >down hit him on the process? Stay the line and hope the guy above you >backs off? >And each driver is facing that same type of problems for each turn. >Then, you come out of turn 4 into the straightaway.. you got 15 laps >of gas left.. Do you pit now and hope a yellow comes out soon.. if so >you won;t have to pit and can take the lead.. but will you be able to >stay on the track until the finish? >Will an accident happen so you can jump into the pits with 5 laps >left? >Your coming down the back straight... your spotter suddenly calls out >wreck on the back straight.. you see a cloud of smoke.. and that's all >you see.. >Do you go high hoping whoever wreck spun low.. or do you go low >thinking the guy smacked the upper wall.. You get to the smoke cloud >pretty fast as your doing 190+ >You cant see squat.. you here a car screaming out of control.. then >right in front of you.. a car is going sideways.. you hit the breaks.. >fighting the wheel.. you hold the line down low and come out the >smoke... you look in your rear view mirror to see that the #5 car that >has been hounding you for the last 20 laps wasn't so lucky.. there he >sits up against the wall after loosing a tire from hitting the car you >just missed. >2 laps left.. you and the 1st place are neck and neck.. through turns >1 and 2 you stay neck and neck.. every time you get into a passing >situation he gets a little more ump. >Last lap, the white flag is flying.. your hands are sweating like >crazy.. you come out of turn 2 with a good line. you dive down to the >apex.. oooh boy he slightly over corrected.. you get beside his door.. >you look over.. he is fighting for everything he has got.. but you >have the inside line... turns 3 and 4 he stays right along side >you.. as you come out of turn 4 into that last straight to the finish >you ride up high.. 2 inches apart.. hoping to make him back off.. >slowly, so very slowly your inching ahead.. checkered flag... >its gonna be close... >did I? >did he? >All of a sudden you hear your spotter screaming for joy.. you crossed >the finished about 6 inches in front of him!!! >Your throw you hand out the window and wave to the fans as you do your >victory lap.... >Now come on, that doesn't sound like fun? >- James "Gunslinger" Wohlever >Techware Computer Services >http://techware.gtinsider.com >Send ATTACHMENTS (Files) to:

Do you have any idea when ascar is going to start? -- Mark Hewitt http://www.worldmotorsport.com

Do you know when ASCAR is due to start? -- Mark Hewitt http://www.worldmotorsport.com

I'm just picking up on this thread now, so please excuse me if i'm restating what i'm sure someone else has already said.. Rubbish--- Smaller Formula One teams have had "rent-a-ride" drivers for as long as I remember - often paying over $1million/race because the team needs the finances to keep going. I find it hard to believe that if they presented the same money to a Nascar team, they would be refused a ride. Yes, it is possible for anyone to get in to a race, of any kind- even F1 (with "SuperLicense", of course). No, more likely, Nascar does not interest them; who wants to drive round and round left-hand turns only for most of the season? Err.. Fittipaldi was a 2-time F1-Champ, btw. Zanardi was one of the worst drivers in F1 BEFORE he went to CART. This just proves the point even more. Albeit he was not in the best of teams, but Johnny Herbert regularly outclassed him in the same car -- he then goes to CART and cleans house! ("I always considered what I was doing in the US to be the top of the game. I never felt that I could do something better that" - quote:Alessandro Zanardi.) -- so he went back to F1 to prove that his first experience in F1 was just a rash of bad luck/bad car. CART is the "top"-- so F1 should be a breeze, right? Think again, Alessandro!!(err.. i mean "Alex"!!) ZERO points in a season and his teammate scored 30+!! How many CART(/ie: IndyCar) drivers have gone to F1 and succeeded? How many CART drivers have gone to F1 period?? Not many: (Mario Andretti, Danny Sullivan, Jacques Villeneuve(Gilles' brother), Michael Andretti, Andrea Montermini, and Jacques Villeneuve (Gilles' son). And how many of these CART drivers who came over did well in Formula One??... The answer: TWO (Mario & the younger Jacques). Now, how many F1 drivers have had some success on the other side of the Atlantic? Well, between 1982 and 1996, EIGHT of four*** Indycar Rookie of the Year awards went to former Formula One drivers!! A better more recent example would be Mark Blundell -- a "so-so" driver in F1 (brief glimpses of something good) -- comes to CART and excels on the ovals; i believe he has a better record on the ovals than on the road-courses. Mansell too did well on the ovals I believe, did he not? So did Max Papis, Christian Fittipaldi, and I know Emo Fittipaldi certainly did. Eddie Cheever did very well on ovals, as did Teo Fabi, Danny Sulivan and Raul Boesel before him. Seems to me history has proven one thing: F1 drivers are, for the most part, the best drivers around. They can go elsewhere and win, or run midfield at the very least. Going the other way, there are very few drivers from N. American series that can go to F1 and succeed, let alone run mid-field. Zanardi proved that you don't even have to be very good to win in N. America - that pretty much tells it how it is... R. Hashana

> besides that *** YOU GEORGE BUSH JUNIOR, Odell BUSH didn't do it, *** YOU > SORRY EXCUSE FOR A MAN !!!! Well, that certainly speaks volumes for your credibility. Why don't you just stuff your pacifier back in your mouth and shut up. -- Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

Perhaps it is a language barrier which prevents you understanding that nobody is saying NASCAR drivers compare favorably with F1 drivers in that kind of racing. Though your initial post started an interesting and mostly intelligent discussion on the matter, I see now that you are really only interested in *** it into a shouting match about who is better. ~daxe

Umm, actually in 2000 the Winston Cup cars race at both Sears Point and the Glen. Jim

>There have been a few successful road racers who entered NASCAR and none of >them has fared very well. ...especially not someone like Tony Stewart... Gunner (just bein' a smartass. again. lol)

and CART (more so CART because it is actually pretty competitive). I cannot agree that NASCAR is just "floor it and turn left." Each oval is substantially different, and although some may not think dealing with traffic I realize that NASCAR is much more than "floor it and turn left" as well, but damn, at Daytona Mark Martin was heard over his radio, "I haven't lifted in over 30 laps now." Those restrictor plates reduce the power so that the engine can't match the handling capability of the car. Shorter tracks seem to require more driver skill. <remove 7of9 for e-mail replies> -- Bill Jones e-mail addresses: (860) 701-1201 WWW: http://pages.cthome.net/billj

Strange how people's opinions differ. I too am from the UK so my viewing is also restricted to the TV (roll on The Rockingham track at Corby...) but I find it anything but boring. I get far more enjoyment out of watching Nascar\CART\IRL on the ovals than I do now from watching the F1 races which due to the nature of most of the tracks can just turn into a procession after the first lap. The disparity between the cars in F1 also take away from the enjoyment factor whereas Nascar races are played out on a much more level playing field. There is much more enjoyment to be had from watching Nascar with drivers constantly changing positions, moving up and down the field, etc than F1 where all too often we are left watching someone drive off into the distance with only a mistake or a pit lane***-up giving the possibility of the race actually becoming a race. Of course I still watch F1 and am hoping that maybe this year we will see a little more e***ment. Peter Hooper

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > : IROC > > : How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? The > series > > : is run on ovals exclusively, > Umm, actually in 2000 the Winston Cup cars race at both Sears Point > and the Glen. > Jim

Umm, what part of *IROC* didn't you understand? ~daxe

> >There have been a few successful road racers who entered NASCAR and none of > >them has fared very well. > ...especially not someone like Tony Stewart... Wasn't Tony Stewart's previous experience centered largely around Sprints, Midgets, Silver Crowns and the oval-only IRL? ~daxe

>I think if there were more racers from different genres willing to >participate in IROC it might have a different flavor. I understand that the >champions from most racing series are invited to participate, but many >refuse. It would be a lot of fun to see M. Schumacher running against D. >Earnhardt, don't you think? On a reasonable mix of tracks, yes. IROC as it stands today is meaningless. Don McCorkle Libertarian Motorsports

I think Stewart is an exceptionally good driver, he'd be successful in any form of racing.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >There have been a few successful road racers who entered NASCAR and none of > >them has fared very well. > ...especially not someone like Tony Stewart... > Gunner > (just bein' a smartass. again. lol)

I can tell you there's a lot of difference. NASCAR 3 would show you. Just the beginning of the season: Daytona is flat out, smoothness and drafting are the deal. Rockingham is heavy braking and turning and the two corners are different because of the dogleg. Las Vegas is getting the car to turn in at 185 (light braking to help turn in is essential) and then picking up the throttle as soon as possible. The line is not a simple arc. And so on. BTW, I used to road race. Oval tracks are no easier, just different. Ask Nige. bob

In article <0a7v4.232$[email hidden]>, "Superdave" <[email hidden]> writes: >You have another believer right here. NASCAR is not racing. Watching cars >drive around on an oval seems very monotonous. I cannot see the sport in >this at all. I say put them on a road course and leave them there. Just what >is the sport in " put it to the floor and steer to the left " ? You *honestly* think that all the ovals are the same, and you can floor it all the way around the track? You're kidding, right? Try flooring it around Bristol - I *dare* you...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (60 lines)

> If you really think oval racing is just "put your foot to the floor and turn > left" then you just proved your ignorance to me. The rest of the statements > below don't have much in the way of fact either. Only Pagan's quote has any > merit. > TA > >Hey, Superdave, real sorry for stealing your post, but, well, it's really > >handy for me. > >All these ding-a-lings in the Indy newsgroup think that 1) Oval racing is > >so very difficult, 2) Computer sims are hardly a representation of true > >oval difficulty, and 3) That since I don't race, I'm not qualified to talk > >about the matter. > >All points are bullshit, but your credentials will send them scurrying for > >another pathetic means of justifying oval racing. > >By the way, Mario Andretti recently said essentially what you wrote, so > >you're in good company. > >- You have another believer right here. NASCAR is not racing. Watching cars > >- drive around on an oval seems very monotonous. I cannot see the sport in > >- this at all. I say put them on a road course and leave them there. Just > what > >- is the sport in " put it to the floor and steer to the left " ? > >- > >- http://www.cushdrive.com/ > >> > First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting > >> the > >> > temptation to call me names. > >> > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another > and > >> > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about > 10 > >> > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > >> > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track > somewhere > >> > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > >> > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > >> > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same > texture" > >************************************************************* > >"You really should try racing some in your lifetime (and not on your > >computer ...). You would quickly discover how much easier a road > >course is than an oval." > >-Allan Pagan

I think the truth is this: road course racing requires every skill in terms of 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 readily add to my examples. There's no doubt that driving a Champ Car, exposed to the elements, at 235 mph demands large stones; and guys like Adrian Fernandez have proven that you can win on an oval even when your car isn't the quickest. I remember the recent article where one of the major car mag editors sat behind Mario in the 'ride along' car at Laguna Seca, and he commented that the sheer brutality of the velocity changes and cornering loads were a revelation that gave him newfound respect for the CART guys. Brian R

Peter Egan wrote that article for Road and Track. IT was also noted about Mansel and heavy vibration you encounter of Ovals. Its a pretty good read if yo have the mag, gives some insight on Champ Car racing and the demands of a driver. Dave

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

I don't quite see what your point is for the discussion.... CART and NASCAR are two different styles of racing. I assume there are two different approaches of engineering and driving. No one can say which is easier, because I doubt they are. CART requires a racing skill as in general. NASCAR requires a NASCAR skill. That's all. > When was the last time you saw drivers going three and four wide in > the corners at 185+ mph on a road course?

As soon as Rockingham is built of course <G> There is now talk about a collaboration with the German circuit also under construction. MS "Mark Hewitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Just wait till ASCAR starts up in Britain - then we'll see some realracing! > > Do you have any idea when ascar is going to start? > -- > Mark Hewitt > http://www.worldmotorsport.com

Agreed. There are two totally different disciplines here. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Anyone remember Mr Mansell cleaning up on the ovals in CART in 1993? <G> MS "daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Mike Laskey <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:s6ev4.11814 > >you really have to say the successful > > road course driver is likely to be the most capable driver. > > I have been reading this thread with interest and most of what I want to

say > has been said by someone else, but I have one word for this thread: > > IROC > > How come the events are nearly always won by a NASCAR driver? Theseries > is run on ovals exclusively, but somehow the 'capable' road racerscompeting > in identically prepared cars can't beat the oval guys. Is it possiblethat > oval racing is not easier, but simply requires a *different* skill set?It > is likely the road racers would cream the NASCAR guys on a road course,but > if driving an oval is so easy..how come the road racers can't beat them > there? > > ~daxe > >

Fittipaldi was "middle to top LOL. A slight understatement about a guy with 2 world championships. MS

Nigel orginally could not stand driving ovals like Michigan due to vibration not allowing him to see. Funny how he got over that after he saw all the rest of the CART drivers out there. Dave Mark Seery <[email hidden]> wrote in article <89r7jp$1uht$[email hidden]>... > Agreed. > There are two totally different disciplines here. Of course there are > exceptions to the rule. Anyone remember Mr Mansell cleaning up on theovals > in CART in 1993? <G> > > MS >

Well, he did throw up inside his helmet at Michigan 93 !! Mike.

> 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.

I think he meant Christian? -- Cheers! Graeme Nash

OK. Now Christian was never anywhere near the top <G>. MS "Graeme Nash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >Fittipaldi was "middle to top > >LOL. > >A slight understatement about a guy with 2 world championships. > > I think he meant Christian? > > -- > Cheers! > Graeme Nash

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.

Quoted text (7 lines)

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

> 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. ********************************************************* "You really should try racing some in your lifetime (and not on your computer ...). You would quickly discover how much easier a road course is than an oval." -Allan Pagan

> 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.

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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > 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.

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."

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 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.

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! :)

Quoted text (27 lines)

> [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

Road rash? :)

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 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.

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.

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!

> 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!

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.

<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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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.

> > For example, > > do you think Jeff Gordon will ever deal with the sheer braking loads in NASCAR

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > 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.

> 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.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > 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.

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > 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

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.

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > > 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.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > 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.

True, I neglected gearing, but the question was specifically about engines, although the comment about accelerating out of corners raises the issue of gearing. It took me a moment with a pen and a paper to convince myself of your point, but of course it's true. Assuming adequate gearing is available, the higher power engine wins out on torque at the drive wheels. Learn something new every day (or in my case, I'm reminded of something old that I learned ten years ago but have lost in the cobwebs of my mind! - too much time studying biological systems instead of the nuts and bolts of my engineering background). Stephen

> 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 Perhaps, but I don't suppose the poster was merely comparing engines. Even if a Cup engine generates more foot pounds of torque than an F1 engine, given the mass of the two cars, the F1 car will *feel* as if it generates far more torque than a Cup car. Given that this discussion is presently concerning driver fitness, felt torque seems to be more relevant than torque measured on a dyno. That is, a lap around a road course in an F1 car will be more brutal than a lap around the same course in a Cup car.

Hmm, I wonder, if we put an old auto *** in an F1, hit the brakes, and put it in "D" would the rear wheels creep a "burnout" ? :-D Don't think so, an F1 engine is useless under...hmmm, 8000 RPM? Yup, but in a totally different way. It is like comparing apples and tomatoes IMO... Put it this way (upsetting a few people); Gang up a crowd of 10 NASCAR drivers against any 10 F1 drivers in a fist-fight! (pullin' yer legs a bit!) Matt

He is right, at 16,000 rpms the F 1 motor won'thave enough torque to pull your hat off. Dave Peter Olivola <[email hidden]> wrote in article <ftgx4.2802$[email hidden]>... > You are flat wrong, Brian. F1 engines are not torque powered, they'rerev > powered. There are very severe limits imposed on an engine's ability to > breath over a wide rev range. While F1 engines have extended that range > they haven't eliminated the limits entirely, and small displacementengines, > especially engines with smallish individual cylinder displacements, thatare > capable of reving beyond 12,000 rpm don't produce high peak torquenumbers. > The power comes from the equation ft/lbs of torque * rpm = hp. Assumeabout > 800 horsepower and a power peak at 16,000 rpm and do the math comparedthat > same 800 hp at a power peak of 7500 rpm and it's quickly apparent that anF1 > engine is torque starved by comparison. > > Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobsof > > torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slowcorners. > > > >

Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE? LOL!! As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way. Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool you. Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty beat up because of it. David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers? > > David G Fisher > > "Alan Orton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in great > > condition to be competitive.

> Perhaps, but I don't suppose the poster was merely comparing engines. Even > if a Cup engine generates more foot pounds of torque than an F1 engine, > given the mass of the two cars, the F1 car will *feel* as if it generates > far more torque than a Cup car. Your right the F1 car will produce more G's under acceleration which do strain a driver but in a Cup car the driver will have to work hard to prevent wheel spin when coming out of a corner which also puts a toll on them mentally, which is another form of fitness. I hope N4 will realistically show the power of Cup cars, N3 is terrible for it.

I'm saying NASCAR drivers don't have to be in great shape to be competitive. Apparently your view of what an athlete is bears no resemblance to mine. David G Fisher "Alan Orton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE? > LOL!! > As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in > NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way. > Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool > you. > Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat > but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty > beat up because of it. > > > > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers? > > > > David G Fisher > > > > "Alan Orton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in

great > > > condition to be competitive.

Strike one... he's slipping. <g> Jan. ---- Peter Olivola <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rrhx4.2872$[email hidden]... > The amount of oxygen present is irrelevant. It's the ability of the bodyto > take it in, move it around and feed tissue. That's what aerobic > conditioning does, it improves the body's ability and efficiency to use > oxygen. It is possible to be oxygen starved in an atmosphere of 100%oxygen > if your body can't process it fast enough to keep up with your internaluse.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <mlgx4.2792> > > So running an O2 line inside the helmet negates the need for aerobic > > conditioning? > > > > Just curious, ya' know. > >

Too right Alan, there is fit and fit. I'm a reserve uncommissioned officer in our army and, although, I may look slightly overweight, appearances deceive. I can "take a licking and keep on ticking." ;-) There's loads of guys who can outrun, pull-up, sit-up and swim me (the official criteria for fitness). But none of them can beat me home when there's a 15 mile march with full kit on to be completed. Although they get away from me at the start, I usally end up lugging someone else's kit while helping him drag his skinny ass across the finish line. Endurance comes with age, as do wrinkles. <g> BTW: I make no illusions as to being able to complete a WC event myself. I'm pretty sure everyone in Nascar could be me home in my preferred challenge. Jan. ---- Alan Orton <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE? > LOL!! > As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in > NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way. > Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool > you. > Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat > but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty > beat up because of it. >

<snip>

Because they don't need to be wisp thin to fit into a tight little rocket ship... :) They're wrinkled because they're still alive to be driving past 40... David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers? > > David G Fisher > > "Alan Orton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in great > > condition to be competitive.

Good point, poor little Adam needs to get some meat on them bones! :) Alan Orton wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE? > LOL!! > As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in > NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way. > Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool > you. > Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat > but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty > beat up because of it. > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers? > > > > David G Fisher > > > > "Alan Orton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in great > > > condition to be competitive.

You're only in better spirits at the end of that hump because you're thinking of that nice fine cold brew waiting for you at the bar... :) Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (32 lines)

> > Too right Alan, there is fit and fit. > > I'm a reserve uncommissioned officer in our army and, although, I may look > slightly overweight, appearances deceive. I can "take a licking and keep on > ticking." ;-) > > There's loads of guys who can outrun, pull-up, sit-up and swim me (the > official criteria for fitness). But none of them can beat me home when > there's a 15 mile march with full kit on to be completed. Although they get > away from me at the start, I usally end up lugging someone else's kit while > helping him drag his skinny ass across the finish line. Endurance comes with > age, as do wrinkles. <g> > > BTW: I make no illusions as to being able to complete a WC event myself. I'm > pretty sure everyone in Nascar could be me home in my preferred challenge. > > Jan. > ---- > Alan Orton <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE? > > LOL!! > > As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in > > NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way. > > Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool > > you. > > Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat > > but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty > > beat up because of it. > > > <snip>

I'm saying NASCAR drivers don't have to be in great shape to be competitive. Apparently your view of what an athlete is bears no resemblance to mine. David G Fisher

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE? > LOL!! > As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in > NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way. > Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool > you. > Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat > but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty > beat up because of it. > > Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers? > > David G Fisher > > > Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in

great > > > condition to be competitive.

Look, we just want to settle once-and-for-all that all forms of auto racing other than {insert one of CART/F1/NASCAR/NHRA here} royally suck. On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:30:13 GMT, "Matt Smith"

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Isn`t everyone rather jumping on this guy a bit. All he wanted to know was >what people saw in Oval racing. He didn`t say it was rubbish. He just wanted >to know what everyone else thught. >I find nascar extremely dull to watch on TV but often enjoy the oval cart >races. The passing always appears ( Please not I say APPEARS :-) ) to be too >easy and doesn`t add to the race. I realise that it's all about tactics and >that the drivers aren`t completely useless but I often feel that it's more >about drivers enjoying themselves than giving a good show. >Of course I've never seen a live race so it could actually be much more >exciting in the flesh ( I live in the UK so chances of me seeing one are >fairly slim) but to a UK tv viewer like me it seems dull as hell. >Matt

Long ago they used to run one road race at Riverside in IROC. Since the cars even back then when they drove the Camaros were built by Banjo Matthews they were pretty much stock cars. I remember Niki Lauda running a bit and the car was just to big and just to heavy. Al Unser Jr, had the record for most wins before the Daytona IROC race this year. Ever since they went away from the 911RSRs the IROC cars have been better suited to NASCAR boys, with a few CART guys tossed in. Dave

One of the biggest differences that face the drivers of NASCAR, is the fact that there are cars side by side. Racing very close together does not happen in open wheel racing very often. If it does it is usually on an oval...

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Because even if it is very easy I can kick the ass of Schumacher on >> GPL...because I do it always and he doesn't.... >> But even if I train in his ferrari for 1 year (oh yes) I will never beat >him >> there, because he is just better.. >But wait...ovals are nothing but straights and left hand corners, right? >Doesn't Michael Schumacher take left turns and go down straight roads in

F1?

Quoted text (18 lines)

>If the answer is yes, then it would seem he already has lots of practice >running in a situation that is limited to those two things and he should >excel automatically. >While I doubt you would get any argument that MS is a better driver than, >say, Dale Earnhardt (including from DE himself), it is quite possible he >might not have the right combination of skills that would make him good at >NASCAR. Try it for yourself. Get your favorite F1 sim and run a full >length race. It's exhausting mentally and physically. Then, put on your a >NASCAR sim and run a full-length race at Talledega. You will be mentally >and physically exhausted after that race too, but for different reasons. >The frantic pace of driving on an F1 circuit at speed and negotiating all >those corners requires a very different type of concentration and intensity >than flawlessly completing repeated fast laps on a NASCAR oval. >There have been a few successful road racers who entered NASCAR and none of >them has fared very well. I just don't think it is fair or accurate to >characterize the demands of NASCAR racing as some kind of inferior subset

of >the skills necessary to compete in road racing. >~daxe

Tony Stewart has not raced on road courses in 10 years or more.... >>There have been a few successful road racers who entered NASCAR and none of >>them has fared very well. > ...especially not someone like Tony Stewart... >Gunner >(just bein' a smartass. again. lol)