Racing Trivia

[Mk10 225th]

I'd like to see a present-day F1 driver do a 500 miler at Daytona, Talledega, or Charlotte, and see if they still felt that NASCAR drivers were a bunch of talentless, overweight rednecks.

I would imagine they might think a little differently about what they make fun of so easily now.

Mk

[funked]

500 miles of mostly straight driving with power steering and small g-loads would be no problem for hyper-fit F-1 pilots who are used to loads up to 5g.  The learning curve would be in learning to drive cars with different weight distribution and solid axles, plus learning the art of car setup which is what separates the men from the boys in the Winston Cup.  Not to say that setup is not critical in F-1, but they are tuning completely different systems of the car.

PS I don't think too many F-1 drivers make fun of NASCAR.  Most of the comments I have heard from them indicate that they either don't know it exists, or if they do know about it, it's something they would like to try.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-16-2001).]

[funked]

Gh0st that sounds like a Ferrari F1 engine but probably a V-12 instead of the current V-10.  I could be wrong.

[StSanta]

WROOOOOOOOOM

<100 laps>

Uhm, maybe I should twist the wheel a bit.

<300 laps>

WROOOM

Damned, outta beers. Cannot work on my beer gut.

<400 laps>

WROOOM

Hoo humm.

Heh, F1 is way cooler than Nascar.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"

[Gh0stFT]

 

Originally posted by Gh0stFT:
can you name this racecar by its sound ?

ok the answere is:
Its Schumis last year F1 Ferrari, a V10 funked  
I have a Ferrari V12 sound somewhere, this sounds even crazier.

[Mk10 225th]

500 miles of mostly straight driving with power steering and small g-loads would be no problem for hyper-fit F-1 pilots who are used to loads up to 5g.

I don't have the exact figures, and I haven't even had a cup of coffee yet (I am NOT a UBB junkie, I am NOT a UBB junkie...), but I think you'd find that there is quite a lot of g in NASCAR also.

And I'm not trying to put down F1.  I watch it whenever I can, and was amazed that Schumacher went to Ferrari, when they clearly were not able at that time to put a good, solid, winning car that would finish the race on the track.

He went there, and made it happen by being involved in all phases of their racing program.  He took on a challenge, and brought them back into the winner's circle.  Ooops, probably a NASCAR-type phrase.  He, um, got a Ferrari driver back on the podium.  There.

First off, I have yet to see a track that NASCAR races on that involves "mostly straight driving."

And if the track doesn't make you pull a good amount of g in a somewhat flat turn, you're being pushed down into your seat from g's at places like Atlanta or Charlotte, and then taking the sideways g's in the dogleg.

With the types of speeds they're running now, and the incredible level of competition, you can't just be a big fat guy anymore either.

I think even Jimmy Spencer is probably in a little bit better shape than you might think.  Surprising yes, and still doesn't do anything for his looks (yikes!), but his physical endurance would probably surprise you.

Many, and most for that matter, truly successful Winston Cup drivers work out a lot.  Mark Martin is probably one of the best examples.  He's kind of like the Schumacher of NASCAR, probably 2 1/2 hours a day.

And I think the real distinction here aside from what funked mentioned is that F1 drivers compared to Cup drivers are basically sprinters, and Cup drivers could be looked at as cross-country.

There is quite a difference between the two obviously, a lot of it having to do with the fact that F1 is on a huge road course that is a shorter race, with about 1/3 the amount of cars, with a lot of space between the cars a lot of the time.

500 mile races, and even the 600 mile race at Charlotte every year, can last for 3 1/2 hours, bumper-to-bumper, car door-to-car door, at extremely high speeds in a 3400 lb. vehicle that doesn't always do what you want it to.

An average lap speed at Daytona of 183mph and change, means that they're moving them along pretty good.  For a long, long, time.

That takes extreme mental concentration.  And I think the F1 drivers could certainly do it.  

They would probably be a little suprised though, at the level of concentration that would be required in a 500 mile race, door-to-door, bumper-to-bumper.

They'd also probably be a little surprised at going down the back straight at Talledega, gettin' real close to 200mph, and being hit in the bellybutton by Dale Earnhardt, bump-drafting their car, to pull him along faster, so he could dive down in turn three, and scare the crap out of you as the air went off your spoiler, and you felt the rear end of the car acting like it wants to ride up into the concrete barrier.  For 3 1/2 hours.

So don't get me wrong...I like F1 a lot, and I have great respect for the drivers.  I'm a big Schumacher fan, and I'm happy to see Mikka do so well these past few years.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

But sometimes I guess I do get a little distressed at the lack of respect NASCAR gets from a lot of people, both in the US and abroad.  

It's kind of like the feeling Europeans might get when someone makes fun of their football, as compared to ours, or vice versa.

And funked, you may have had the TV turned on sometimes when I didn't, because the only F1 driver I've ever heard say anything nice about NASCAR was Gerhard Berger.  

Oh heck, didn't mean to pop off so long.  I just think that if people knew what was going on in NASCAR more, more people would enjoy it, and appreciate what those guys go through with 135 degree cockpit temperatures on a hot August Sunday in a 3 1/2 hour, grueling, 500 mile race.

Oh, and I've seen some pretty interesting gestures from F1 drivers directed towards other drivers, and some other associated behaviours that might translate quite easily into the NASCAR method of expressing displeasure.  They just make sure their steering wheel is taken care of first.  

So here's looking forward to an exciting year in NASCAR (hopefully Mark, Rusty, or Kenny Schrader will do well this year, they're from Missouri and Arkansas), and an exciting season in F1, as Mikka takes on Michael again.

Gentlemen, start your engines.

Mk

[funked]

One thing most people don't realize is that F-1 cars are on the limit of adhesion for most of the lap.  On some NASCAR circuits (Talladega, Daytona), the cars never even reach their cornering limits.  And those limits are much lower than in F-1.

Furthermore stock cars are by design much more stable under acceleration and cornering.  Stock cars are almost always in understeer, while oversteer can be seen in any slow-to-medium speed corner in F-1.

Some of the highest g-loads come under braking in F-1 (near 5g), and braking barely exists in NASCAR.  

I think the concentration in both sports is similar - the precision of traveling in a tight pack vs. the precision of keeping a 900 hp monster on the edge of grip.  

But the physical intensity is much much higher in F-1.  Two hours of sprinting vs. 3-1/2 hours of walking.  No comparison IMHO.

PS F-1 bores the toejam out of me, at least on TV.  Bernie has ruined a once great series.  I'll watch a race on TV if it's raining, otherwise CLICK.  I'd much rather spend a few hours at the local bullring.  

An F-1 race in person is a different issue.  The sound of the cars alone is worth the price of admission.  Recordings and TV do not do it justice.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-16-2001).]

[AKDejaVu]

 

Some of the highest g-loads come under braking in F-1 (near 5g), and braking barely exists in NASCAR.

LOL! You must be under the impression that all NASCAR races are run at Daytona and Talladega.

A NASCAR racing car recently went around a shorter track with a "break" cam.  I was totally amazed to see the entire rotor go to red hot in a matter of a second under heavy breaking.

That said, there is no way in hell a NASCAR racer will experience the same G load as an Indy or F1 racer.  The Indy and F1 cars are generating incredible amounts of downforce that enable them to corner and break at incredible speeds.  NASCAR just doesn't have the areodynamics for it.

The one thing F1 racers don't have to face as often is 3 wide driving.  If they go in side by side into a corner, they crash and a little girl slap fight ensues.  This is normal racing conditions in NASCAR.  Bumping the left rear corner in the middle of a turn is commonplace (especially if you're named Earnhardt) and there is just more to worry about.  The cars aren't gluing you to the road there... you are barely controlling them.

Each has pros and cons.  I like to watch both and can apreciate them for what they offer.  Necks always believe they are the toughest, while Euro's (I know.. not just Euros in F1) will always say that doesn't matter

AKDejaVu

[funked]

Necks... LOL YOU CLONE!

[Mk10 225th]

First off, I'll remember to be kind...I appreciate your comments about the Spit V, and really I think we're pretty close on our ways of thinking, but just a few points I might elaborate on:

One thing most people don't realize is that F-1 cars are on the limit of adhesion for most of the lap. On some NASCAR circuits (Talladega, Daytona), the cars never even reach their cornering limits. And those limits are much lower than in F-1.

While that certainly is true at the larger superspeedways, let's not forget they race on a lot of tracks that don't quite have the banking the larger tracks do...Martinsville, Richmond, Loudon, even tracks like Darlington to a certain degree.  And I think those 3400 lbs. do try and break free pretty easily in the corners on those tracks, plus I don't think the tires are as wide as in F1.

Furthermore stock cars are by design much more stable under acceleration and cornering. Stock cars are almost always in understeer, while oversteer can be seen in any slow-to-medium speed corner in F-1.

Understeer?  Oversteer?  Oh!  You mean "loose" and "pushin'"    

Well, somewhat, but a lot of guys get a push, I mean have an understeering condition sometimes too, and it's hard as heck to get that puppy to turn.

You also have a lot higher center of gravity in a stock car, with a lot more roll to it.  

Also, something I've realized just in the past few years, is how much the cars dance around in the draft.  I really can't believe how much they move back and forth in the pack, buffeting around.  Probably due to all the constant changes with front air dams and rear spoilers, and now that roof airfoil.

Some of the highest g-loads come under braking in F-1 (near 5g), and braking barely exists in NASCAR.

Well, except at places like Martinsville, and Watkins Glen and Sears point.  Oh, and Bristol.  Man, those brakes light up like cherries at Bristol.  Sometimes even lights the tires on fire, or as they say down there, the "tars on far."

But the physical intensity is much much higher in F-1. Two hours of sprinting vs. 3-1/2 hours of walking. No comparison IMHO.

Honestly, I really don't know.  That's why I think it would be so incredible to have someone like Gerhard or someone like that come over and have Jack Roush or some other NASCAR bigshot give him a ride for a race like Daytona or the Brickyard.  I would really, really like to hear what an F1 driver had to say after a grueling (at least by NASCAR standards...) race.  That would be SO cool!

PS F-1 bores the toejam out of me, at least on TV. Bernie has ruined a once great series. I'll watch a race on TV if it's running, otherwise CLICK.

I used to REALLY enjoy F1 when it was on at like, 6:45am here stateside on cable, live.

It was so much fun to get up early before anyone else, and be able to watch almost a whole race without familial intervention all by my lonesome.  It was almost like cheating!

An F-1 race in person is a different issue. The sound of the cars alone is worth the price of admission. Recordings and TV do not do it justice.

Oh God, wouldn't that be the bee's knees!  Man, I'd just love to check out Monte Carlo, or anywhere really, hell, I imagine it would be pretty much a religeous experience.  F1 cars are pretty much F-15's with wheels.

Now hey there, that's a pretty good analogy!  F1 racing is like modern jet fighters, and NASCAR is like WWII aircraft!  Hmmmm....

Mk

[funked]

No, NASCAR can't be WWII because there were at least some parts on those cars that were designed after 1950.    

I exclude Bristol, Martinsville, Sears Point, and Watkins Glen from my comments about brakes and oversteer.  Those are manly tracks.

I still think Nigel Mansell would be great in NASCAR.  He was simply a NATURAL on ovals.  His dice with Paul Tracy at Loudon in 1993 was one of the greatest races I have ever seen.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

I like the Super Modified cars. Open wheels and injected big blocks. At Pheonix their track times are as fast as the Indy cars. I wish Can Am would come back with the big winged, injected, dual overhead cam big blocks. That was racing!  

[funked]

Jimdandy, at the Monterey Historics there is a Can Am race once every 2 or 3 years.  One time we had George Follmer, Chris Amon, and Denny Hulme in one race.  Big block McLarens and the 1100 hp turbo Porsche 917/30 woohoo!

[Mk10 225th]

No, NASCAR can't be WWII because there were at least some parts on those cars that were designed after 1950

OUCH!

Mk

[Cabby]

Racing is racing.  What you race on(or with) doesn't matter.  And if you think NASCAR drivers are beer-bellied rednecks, you don't know anything about NASCAR.

Cabby
Former professional racing motorcyclist and stock car driver.

------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"

[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 02-16-2001).]