So... All you road race elitests were wrong?

Fine then, I do this the other "easy way":

I can't stand watching F1 OR Nascar!

F1, don't like the sound, don't like the looks, entirely unrelateable. I respect the drivers for having the skills the drive something that is faster than most people's brains can comprehend, but I find the racing boring.

Nascar. I don't like the "spec"ness of it. I don't like the idea that the only difference is the driver. Why? Because if the machine doesn't really make any difference, and it all comes down to the driver's training, talent, skill, and endurance? I'd rather just watch people running in an oval.

There.

Who is hating, the rules are wrong not the drivers or teams, who makes the rules (refer to Javelins post)

After having my ass repeatedly handed to me by racerfink, I don't think I'm going to argue with him about anything, evar.

poopshovel wrote: After having my ass repeatedly handed to me by racerfink, I don't think I'm going to argue with him about anything, evar.

yeah, I think he's just smarter/knows more than we do .. not going to give him any more ammo to shoot back at me ... I didn't realize that they only ran 1/4 of the oval

Which quarter?

he'll have an answer for you ... just wait

racerfink wrote: Because I rain tire would chunk INSTANTLY on an oval. It's not that hard to understand.

Funny. I spent 2 hours in a tropical storm on the banks of Daytona and was A-OK.

With a 3700lb car... You know what. Fine. Go buy a NASCAR stock car and show them how to do it at Daytona in the rain. You are all obviously much smarter than ANY Goodyear tire engineer, or any person who has ever been involved with any NASCAR stock car in any capacity what so ever.

Just to show you what the banking does to tires... Copy and pasted from Wikipedia, which is probably where Derrick got his map.

"In 2005, a second infield road course configuration was constructed, primarily for motorcycles. Due to fears of tire wear on the banked oval sections, oval turns 1 and 2 were bypassed giving the new course a length of 2.95 miles (4.75 km). The Daytona SportBike that runs the Daytona 200 presented by Honda, however, uses the main road course except for the motorcycle Pedro Rodriguez Hairpin (tighter than the one used for cars; the car version is used as an acceleration lane for motorcycles)."

DILYSI Dave wrote:

racerfink wrote: Because I rain tire would chunk INSTANTLY on an oval. It's not that hard to understand.

Funny. I spent 2 hours in a tropical storm on the banks of Daytona and was A-OK.

What car were you in? I've done several races at Daytona, only one in a light rain. I was on shaved Toyo RA-1's. My car only weighs 2129 with me in it.

MX3 on Dunlop Star Specs. Probably 2500# or so with me in it. Would do 130-135 with a good draft, though 125 was a more typical terminal speed. The rain was torrential, with a bonus of 60-80 mph gusts. They were full tread when we started, but the storm made landfall 8-10 hours after the race started. There was some hydroplaning coming out of the bus stop since water got a few inches deep there. Everywhere else, it was a non issue.

I'm not saying it's an equivalent car to a cup car - it isn't. I'm saying that if there were motivation within NASCAR, it could be done. Maybe lockout 4th gear. Maybe give them wider rims for rains. Hell, with EFI now, they could upload rain tunes remotely and on the fly from race control. Dunno. I just know that if I were running NASCAR, I'd figure out a way.

mguar wrote: In reply to ScottRA21: Scott, You're wrong.. it's not about spec racing in NASCAR if it was Dodge would win as often as Chevy does.. (and Richard Petty Racing would be driving a Dodge instead of a Ford) There is a world of difference between cars. Between each car. Hendricks Motorsports builds a good bunch of the Chevy race cars but not all. Each car may come from the same builder but the results aren't the same.. Watching either the Formula 1 races or NASCAR takes involvement in order to enjoy them.. You need to follow your favorite driver or team or whatever. Stay loyal to them throughout the good and bad results.. Other wise it's just noise going around and around..

Thus I said, "Spec"ness. Which it is. It's as close to a "spec" racing series as they can make it, while still having the wiggle room to say that each car is a different "Brand".

Add that to racing around an oval for hours on end, and without apologies I can say: No. I am not interested. I will not invest my interest in a driver or a team, of a series which at the fundamental level, doesn't interest me.

Formula 1, I may have liked back in the 70's. I love the sound of the old F1 cars. Now? With the tiny displacement, 15k+ rpm engines, I find they sound...soulless. Just a high pitched wail that doesn't inspire anything in me. The cars, yes, are starting to look a little less alien, but they are still far from beautiful to behold in my eyes. So they started passing again? Cool. Still not about to watch it. Just doesn't interest me.

What does interest me? ALMS, Rally did (then Manufacturers pulled out, and Loeb became all conquering, taking all the fun of guessing who might win out), hill climbing, off road racing (Baja/Dakar), but the one race that I have the most desire to see? Nurburg 24H Rennen.

Why? Diversity. Insanity. Racing for the sake of racing. No big championship looming over everything. That is just what I like.

Agree with Dave, those same engineers manage to make decent wets for dozens of other classes. The real issue is they dont want to run in the rain.

Nascar is neither the heaviest class nor the most powerful.

Daytona was completely resurfaced a couple of years ago, any info prior to that is not relevant.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I'm not saying it's an equivalent car to a cup car - it isn't. I'm saying that if there were motivation within NASCAR, it could be done.

They have a hard enough time keeping dry tires on the cars.

I do recall that they DID run in the rain in Japan, and the drivers had a good time with it.

How many times can you people bicker over this subject, anyway?

I just saw on the news how they've had torrential rains and major flooding in England this week, it's no surprise they suspended the race.

stuart in mn wrote: I just saw on the news how they've had torrential rains and major flooding in England this week, it's no surprise they suspended the race.

They haven't suspended the race. The OP got his knickers in a wad because qualifying was postponed for about an hour.

Similar conditions may exist tomorrow and there may a red flag (or two) thrown. But, it's a given that every attempt will be made to complete at least 50% of the scheduled race distance - and it will done with lots of water on the track.

Hate NA$CAR? Hardly. I've driven the things (at least Winston/NEXTEL Cup cars, not CoT). Hella great engineering, gobs of power, great brakes, tons of fun to drive. It's the whole WWE thing that follows it, combined with, yes, the fact that every time a mouse makes water on the track they call a screeching halt. Oh, and the highly commercialized aspect. Yeah, I know, every form of motorsport depends on advertising but NA$CAR takes it to new heights (depths?).

Tire technology stops them? Please. How fast is a LeMans car? 200+ MPH? They run on rain tires, without benefit of banking. LMP's are 900kg, 1984 pounds. GTE cars are 1245kg, 2750 pounds. They run rain or shine. Don't see a whole lot of tire chunking.

If F1 in Britain was postponed due to rain, it musta been a real frog drowner. Maybe they decided starting on a soaking slippery track with near zero visibility was a bad idea. I betcha they started on a wet track, though. If it had been NA$CAR, they would have sent the jet driers out. And then once three raindrops hit they'd have thrown covers over the cars.

I don't understand why anyone would want to watch an oval race in the rain anyway. The Nationwide race at Montreal was like watching a crash in slow motion, I can't imagine a speedway race.

turbojunker wrote: I don't understand why anyone would want to watch an oval race in the rain anyway. The Nationwide race at Montreal was like watching a crash in slow motion, I can't imagine a speedway race.

That's the answer, besides 100k people sitting in metal seats waiting for lightning is probably a bad idea

Wally wrote:

turbojunker wrote: I don't understand why anyone would want to watch an oval race in the rain anyway. The Nationwide race at Montreal was like watching a crash in slow motion, I can't imagine a speedway race.

That's the answer, besides 100k people sitting in metal seats waiting for lightning is probably a bad idea

BUT! They are aluminum seats.

They had rain tires for the Busch/Nationwide series, who runs on Saturday. You can delay a Sprint Cup race because people will miss work, cancel appointments, whatever to see that race. Nationwide, not so much. At one race last year they raced some cars with a wiper already installed.

Jimmie's famous crash.

Notice that he's got a wiper on his windshield, and this was back in 2000.

it comes down to roots and tradition... NASCAR's roots and a major part of their fanbase are in the circle tracks that are scattered throughout the country.

they don't run in the rain.

it's also why they call them "stock cars" when there is nothing "stock" on them any more- take a look at the cars at any local circle track, and the only cars that have any "stock" left in them are in the low end bomber classes, with everything above that being 100% fabricated tube chassis cars that are specially built for doing one thing- going fast while turning left on dry pavement or dirt.

novaderrik wrote: it comes down to roots and tradition... NASCAR's roots and a major part of their fanbase are in the circle tracks that are scattered throughout the country. they don't run in the rain. it's also why they call them "stock cars" when there is nothing "stock" on them any more- take a look at the cars at any local circle track, and the only cars that have any "stock" left in them are in the low end bomber classes, with everything above that being 100% fabricated tube chassis cars that are specially built for doing one thing- going fast while turning left on dry pavement or dirt.

And back before nascar was big, they raced on the beach or road courses......oh how that is missed.

And honestly, the LMP description of weight is misleading, they do weigh approximately that, but generate an easy 3-4 times as much downforce as the nascars.......which should make them harder on rubber, oh wait.....goodyear vs. michelin/dunlop/conti/pirelli.......I can see the problem.

Edit: My bitch with nascar is "stock" in stock car, and the simple fact of they have shunned nearly every technological innovation for one reason or another. Here are some examples.

Cam in block rule.......Thanks Chrysler for threatening to pull out due to the Ford cammer

Body templates.......even in the 60's, Yunick figured out a car that looked right and 7/8ths scale would be faster. Now, it is uniform bodies with different stickers.

EFI......they've finally come around on this. I'm still surprised.

I respect it for what it used to be, and what it is meant to be.......the execution is where they've gone wrong.

I would agree that trying to say one version of motorsports is "better" than another is a pointless excersize.

It is a matter of personal opinion.

Both my son-in-laws are excellent fellows. They like football: I like soccer.

My office-mate is a fine person. He's a Republican: I'm a Democrat.

We do not all like the same thing.

For the record, I do not find F1 or NASCAR all that interesting, but I wouldn't turn down a ticket to see one of these events.

For what it's worth, I do Race In Rain.

And not just once.

oldsaw wrote: The OP got his knickers in a wad because qualifying was postponed for about an hour.

Hardly. But thanks for knowing exactly what I was feeling without having ever met me.

Maybe it's time for GRM to do a short little interview with tire engineers.