The difference between F1 and NASCAR

Yesterday I wasn't on the road, and I had a chance to watch both the F1 race, and then the NASCAR race in California.

What struck me after both races ended is that these two races perfectly illustrate why F1 has had a hard time of capturing a strong U.S. audience, and why NASCAR is so popular:

The F1 race was interesting for F1 fans. If you know the history of Vettle and Webber the soap-opera hysterics would be entertaining. For the rest of us, it was a team deciding who was going to win, and one petulant driver ignoring orders while his team-mate in front "held back" to save fuel and tires. The excitement didn't come from on-track, but instead from a driver who didn't obey orders. The race came down to a single-file finish, with the other contenders....well, not really contending. It seemed more about saving fuel and "minding the gap" than actually trying to win. Afterwards there was a bit of pouting and stamping of feet--- and tons of media coverage.

The NASCAR race on the other hand, finished with two guys sliding around at 180+, bumping, banging, blocking each other, and trying desperately to win. While they were fighting it out, Kyle Busch passed them both for the win, with less than a 1/2 lap left. Of course there was a tremendous wreck, caused by the leaders who were hell-bent on beating each other. There was constant passing, lots of contact, and high drama right up until the end. There was also a pseudo fist-fight in the pits--- followed by tons of media coverage.

NASCAR may be crude, and there may be some cars "more equal than others", but after watching yesterday's race, it's easy to see why it's popular.

It's also easy to see why F1 isn't very popular in the U.S. Unless you are an avid F1 fan, the race was pretty dull. (although those pit stops are blindingly fast!) It's also disheartening for a race fan to see teams "hold back" drivers. Don't we all want to see the best man win, and have to race for the win?

just an observation from a casual fan of both

Valid points!

Yeah I was watching the F1 event on the, uh, DVR and I actually dozed off for part of it. Almost all of the excitement came from Vettel being a massive dick to Webber, which was maybe 3 minutes of good racing in total. With F1 excitement is far from guaranteed.

Kind of like soccer to football as well.

'Murican's need touchdowns and glitz, not strategy and teamwork.

/trolling

You're never going to see guys swapping paint in F1 because the cars just can't deal with it. Between very effective but fragile aero and exposed wheels, you can't play bumper cars. Your example of the NASCAR race also illustrates exactly why the Red Bull teammates weren't supposed to be racing each other after the last pit stop - they didn't want to end up 2nd and 3rd instead of 1st and 2nd. Strategy is more clever than dramatic sometimes.

Love those pit stops though. I swear Webber didn't even come to a complete stop on one of his. 2.3 seconds!

There was a good deal of wheel banging on the f1 race. It was crazy when vet and weber went at each other!

Yeah, those pit stops are freeking amazing!

Clearly an open wheel car can't bump and bang, but they can still........you know race

NASCAR is also a team sport---- just not as strictly regimented-- at least publicly. Although winning through strategy may be smart, winning through guts and determination is a whole lot more fun to watch.

When I visited overseas I realized I WAS that loud, brash American we've all heard about. (at least in polite European society) This could explain why I found myself glued to the end of the NASCAR race, and thought he F1 race was disappointing.

The soccer vs. American Football comparison is a good one.

z31maniac wrote: Kind of like soccer to football as well. 'Murican's need touchdowns and glitz, not strategy and teamwork. /trolling

Of course, you're not going to win American football without all four of the things on your list...

MadScientistMatt wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Kind of like soccer to football as well. 'Murican's need touchdowns and glitz, not strategy and teamwork. /trolling

Of course, you're not going to win American football without all four of the things on your list...

I know, I'm saying it's more about style. Look at the way passing rules have been opened up over the last 10-15 years to produce more scoring. Because us 'Muricans gots to be having a high score, or it isn't a good game.

However, I do like watching NASCAR when they visit the road courses. The ovals just aren't my thing (and yes I've been to Talladega and Texas Motor Speedway).

I know NASCAR does actually have some pretty impressive tech, but that's a big part of the draw for me to F1, the aero, the tech, etc.

I think one of the things that prevents F1 from being as accessible is some of the rules that have been put into place to allow passing. I understand the technical reasons for why DRS was added and I appreciate the passing it creates - although it's pretty boring passing, just a drag race. But it's SO artificial. So are the "option tires". Those sort of rules will easily turn someone off F1.

Remaining part of a civil discussion about the distinctions and why one or the other appeals...

I agree about DRS and option tires and so forth. Even KERS seems similar, though that's arguably a reasonable way to deal with that spike of power (as opposed to just having any available KERS energy tacked onto "full throttle", which seems like it could make for awkward driving as full throttle varies by 100+hp... Perhaps when they're allowed to store more energy and the exception is not having stored energy. But I digress...)

On the flipside, I feel like NASCAR's racing is similarly and unduly influenced by the rulemakers, but this time it's in smoky back rooms (I'm sure they're still smoky in tobacco country).

Where they both suffer, for me, is in being so specialized that it's hard to see the parallels to my own performance car. They both use a ton of aero (F1 more, of course), and they both use suspension systems that are absolutely bizarre, with NASCAR guys intentionally doing things that should be horrible for mechanical grip in order to get those "stock" bodies positioned for better aero effect. Shockingly, with the interter, F1 has actually made a greater contribution to suspension technology in recent years, in terms of what may be applied outside of their narrow slice of regulations. Of course, the inerter wasn't actually invented in F1, that was just the first place where they could really develop it.

In reality, I hardly ever watch either of them. I'd like to get around to more F1, but I just don't have that much time to watch racing, and the top-level auto racing absolutely falls on its face for racing when compared to MotoGP and arguably more so World Superbike. I'm more interested usually in circuit racing, but I also find WRC to provide much more entertainment than either NASCAR or F1. I also just downloaded some DTM and some V8 Supercars, so I can watch cars with fenders turn both directions consistently.

Oh, and I'm overdue to go watch 1/4-mile dirt oval in person. It's been forever, but I remember that being pretty cool...

Joe,
Great write up. I'm not an F1 fan, so I couldn't say much about the race. I think you hit it on the head when you said you can see why NASCAR is so popular, despite being crude. I think the raw crudness of the sport is a big part of what makes it so popular. Fans here like the beating and banging. Yes, NASCAR has some made for TV elements in it, such as "debris" cautions. But a finish like what happened yesterday, and the aftermath, is something racing fans here eat up. I thought it was an incredible finish and a great race overal.

Think of it this way, the national broadcast of the '79 Daytona 500 was a major factor in pushing NASCAR into the maintstream spotlight. We all know what happened in that race.

Keith Tanner wrote: I think one of the things that prevents F1 from being as accessible is some of the rules that have been put into place to allow passing. I understand the technical reasons for why DRS was added and I appreciate the passing it creates - although it's pretty boring passing, just a drag race. But it's SO artificial. So are the "option tires". Those sort of rules will easily turn someone off F1.

You hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.

I think KERS is good. Everyone understands a "turbo boost" button

Joe Gearin wrote: It's also disheartening for a race fan to see teams "hold back" drivers. Don't we all want to see the best man win, and have to race for the win? just an observation from a casual fan of both

well we do see teams "hold back" drivers in NASCAR ... how many "gas milage" races have you seen in the last few yrs ? F1 doesn't refuel ... NASCAR has to "manage" the distance

but overall I think you're right

There is a lot of comparison of NASCAR and WWF with how soap opera-ish it is. I see no difference with the Redbull team yesterday. There is even pouting going on at NASA weekends. It the the soap opera thing is just a racing thing.

Now, I do not dispute the "some cars are more equal than others" and "strategic debris cautions". I think NASCAR is guilty of that kinda stuff.

I follow F1 pretty closely, but don't watch NASCAR, except for the occasional road race. I can't relate to oval racing at all since I only do road racing. And I'm actually off-put by the WWF helmet-throwing, "payback is a bitch" redneck culture of it all.

However, I recognize that I'm not the audience that NASCAR is targeting and there are a lot more people closer to their common denominator than to mine.

Even so, I fast-forward a lot of the F1 races. Just the first few laps and the last few are usually all I see, since the pit stops change the order up so much in the middle that it doesn't mean much. Although I enjoyed attending the Austin race and even jumped out of my seat with Hamilton passed Vettel for the win! Most sporting events are better in person, n'cest pas?

MadScientistMatt wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Kind of like soccer to football as well. 'Murican's need touchdowns and glitz, not strategy and teamwork. /trolling

Of course, you're not going to win American football without all four of the things on your list...

Don't forget mutant size humans that can somehow run the 100m in 10 flat.

NASCAR road racing is where it's at. OP more or less hit the nail on the head, sideways, as to why F1 sucks to watch, its turned from a formula class to a spec series, combine that with the politics that prevent people from flat out competing and there ya go.

I can live with DRS, although I think we may no longer need it. I think DRS opened up drivers to the possibility of passing. I think since they've introduced it there have also been more non DRS passes than before. I find two cars playing cat and mouse inching up on each other a few 10ths at a time fascinating and I watch most recent F1 races on the edge of my seat. Whenever I watch an oval race it just sends me to sleep. I don't give a rats ass about two cars that can lap within 1mph of each other passing and repassing each other. I'll take one good F1 pass over hundreds of 200mph slip stream passes. I absolutely respect the engineering and driving skill of NASCAR drivers, it's 200mph oval racing that puts me to sleep.

I also like the tires. Look at last weekend. Sutil chose to start on the harder tires and it allowed him to lead at several points. But by then end, his team mate DiResta who went for the opposite strategy was fasters and could easily have passed if not told to hold station due to team orders. Two opposite strategies, almost the same result.

Basil Exposition wrote: Most sporting events are better in person, n'cest pas?

Quoted for truth!

I don't like NASCAR because it's a contact sport. I think racing should be about driving skill, not blocking and bashing your opponents.

i caught the end of the NASCAR race... it gets even better if you know the whole backstory of the 2 guys that crashed on the last lap- Denny Hamlin and Joey Logano.. last year, they were teammates that always told the public that they got along, even tho they often locked horns on the track and complained about the way they raced each other... now they aren't teammates that don't have to play nice and pretend they are all buddy buddy, and they are somewhat bitter rivals.. then you add in that one of them (Logano) tends to be a bit of an asshat that is in way over his head on the track and that asshattery cost Tony Stewart some positions on a restart, and you get the brawl on pit road after the race...

i don't think the WWE comparison is really fair- all the rivalries and attitudes in NASCAR are the real deal and they grow up organically on the track over time, and it's the honesty and emotions of it that the fan base can relate to.. F1 just seems to sterile and- dare i say European- to the average American racing fan. it's a culture thing.

so much of what top tier racing have become is artificial or manufactured. it is where I fear the new USCR series is headed as well.

That '79 Daytona 500, that was genuine passion and racing uninfluenced by narrow tech specifications, DRS, push to pass, limited life tires... F1 engineers keep finding innovative ways to go fast and the F1 mgt keeps adding silly variables to stifle any progress.