NASCAR + Road Course = Crash Fest Photos

[RSO 34]

I went to the Busch East race at Lime Rock today and was amazed at the amount of carnage that occurs when you make Nascar racers turn right. Approximately half of the race was run under yellow and there were even two red flags thrown for good measure. These cars all finished except for the one that decided to catch fire during a spin.

http://photography.robertondrovic.com/gallery/3323454/1/185263514

 

[NSXLuvr]

OUCH!! Thank god its just NASCAR. It would be so painful to see that in Speed GT or ALMS

 

[BD]

lol, those cars can barely go straight...lol They are trying a road course... :biggrin:

 

[PhiAlpha44]

You guys are funny.

 

[comtec]

lol, those cars can barely go straight...lol They are trying a road course... :biggrin:

Barely go straight? I hope you are talking about just the Bush east series (which i know nothing about) and not Nascar in general. If a team and driver are experienced at road courses they can actually be quite fast in those cars.

 

[PhiAlpha44]

Barely go straight? I hope you are talking about just the Bush east series (which i know nothing about) and not Nascar in general. If a team and driver are experienced at road courses they can actually be quite fast in those cars.

I agree. I think people here just like to $hit on Nascar. That's fine. I'm sure the wost Nascar driver is probably better than anyone here. If you can handle a vehicle you can handle it. I don't care if it's going left, right, up or down. Look at the old speedvision show where JPM and Jeff Gordon switched cars at Indy and ran laps. Gordon was setting times in JPM's Formula 1 car that would have qualified for the USGP. JPM could barely get around the track in Jeff's car. I truly don't believe that the kind of talent a driver has depends on what series you run in. I'd take Tony Stewart in any vehicle on earth with some practice.

 

[DocL]

They actually look better all banged up! :biggrin:

 

[RSO 34]

I think people here just like to $hit on Nascar. That's fine. I'm sure the wost Nascar driver is probably better than anyone here. If you can handle a vehicle you can handle it.

I would certainly hope that the worst Nascar driver would probably be better than anyone here. With millions of dollars of training and backing along with countless hours of track time, that would be expected. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are not great drivers. Even Scott Speed is a great driver but just didn't cut it in F1.

The Busch East is a series where 8 Nextel teams have drivers in development, most of them teenagers too young to even drive in the actual Busch series. For example, the points leader is Joey Logano who is on Joe Gibbs' team (he is the poor number 20 above) and who is only 17. He is expected to be teammates with Tony Stewart to start the 2009 Nextel Cup season.

Each of these racers, irrespective of age, is a professional with a trememdous amount of oval experience at many levels but very little road course driving. It was interesting to listen to them talk in the paddock where they discussed how their teams set up the cars so they could turn right and how 15 of the drivers had never even been on a road course before (Lime Rock is the only road course during the season).

Although they would all be considered great drivers in their own right, at times it was like watching a child begin to walk for the first time. They need to learn different ovals during the season and there is no where near the amount of wrecks as seen this weekend. This was an 82 lap race and there were 40 laps under full course yellow plus 2 red flags. Ironically, the only place where no car went off was the only left hander on the track.

Just like the pros at Watkins Glen last weekend, you see spins and cars going off that would normally not occur on ovals. For example, can anyone remember a time where Jeff Gordon had a similar incident on an oval where he was leading and simply spun as he did in Turn 1 last weekend to lose the race at the end.

Road courses do require a different car setup and somewhat different "skills" as well as experience to be able to handle without incident. There are Nascar drivers who are much better at road courses than others who would be equally great drivers on an oval but overall you do see more cars going off on road courses.

 

[myopicpaideia]

I agree. I think people here just like to $hit on Nascar. That's fine. I'm sure the wost Nascar driver is probably better than anyone here. If you can handle a vehicle you can handle it. I don't care if it's going left, right, up or down. Look at the old speedvision show where JPM and Jeff Gordon switched cars at Indy and ran laps. Gordon was setting times in JPM's Formula 1 car that would have qualified for the USGP. JPM could barely get around the track in Jeff's car. I truly don't believe that the kind of talent a driver has depends on what series you run in. I'd take Tony Stewart in any vehicle on earth with some practice.

I don't mean to sound like an F1 apologist or something, but...Jeff Gordon got within two seconds of the 'field' for the USGP for that year, meaning he was about 1.5 seconds off of the slowest car in the field. In the current F1 era, every car qualifies for the race, it just depends where on the grid you start. And if I recall, JPM has actually won some races in NASCAR since his switch. It'd be very interesting to see if Jeff would be able to do the same in F1...

Anyway, I don't want to create an agrument over which racing series is superior...so I'll stop talking

Seriously, though, I think NASCAR would be intriguing if it wasn't for those damn ovals. In theory you have driver/team vs. driver/team and not car&driver vs. car&driver. That's the only real drawback of F1 if looked at superficially.

However, with F1 the manufacturers are really the 'team' vs. 'team' element. Drivers are within such a minute differential in skill level that most of them could probably beat each other if they swapped cars out. In short, if you are into high technology and engineering, or machine vs. machine, F1 is for you. If you are more of a man vs. man person, then NASCAR would be for you if you could handle the monotony of the oval tracks.

 

[comtec]

I don't mean to sound like an F1 apologist or something, but...Jeff Gordon got within two seconds of the 'field' for the USGP for that year, meaning he was about 1.5 seconds off of the slowest car in the field. In the current F1 era, every car qualifies for the race, it just depends where on the grid you start. And if I recall, JPM has actually won some races in NASCAR since his switch. It'd be very interesting to see if Jeff would be able to do the same in F1...

Dude, give the guy a break. He only had 7 laps in a car he had never driven before on a track that he had never driven on.



I would say he impressed someone if not you.

March 2004
"NASCAR Champ Jeff Gordon will get another chance to try the Williams Formula One car. The British team has invited the American driver for a four-day test later this year"

He had reason to smile. On the second-lap of the second segment, having mastered the luxury of traction control and precision braking, Gordon laid down a lap just 1.3 seconds slower than Montoya's best of the day in the same car.

Those among the F1 contingent were impressed with how quickly Gordon adjusted to the unique machine, despite only logging some seven laps.

And they say Americans can't excel in F1.

"It's a shame he didn't get more time in the car," said Montoya, the 2000 Indianapolis 500 champion and multiple winner in Formula One. "I'm sure he'd be as competitive as anybody in F1."

 

[myopicpaideia]

Yes, yes, 1.3 seconds slower on the same day than JPM. I don't have the transcript in front of me but I do specifically recall what I said as also being correct. Meaning JPM wasn't driving at a competitive qualifying race pace on the day. That said - and I very well concede - I bet given more time in the car JG would be very quick. Listen I'm not saying JG isn't a great driver (He's my favorite NASCAR driver by far).

I'm just saying NASCAR, on average, doesn't require the same set of skills or the level of pure talent that F1 does. This is simply because of the characteristics of the circuits raced on (high banked ovals - for the most part), and the performance levels of the car (inferior acceleration, braking, lateral grip, and change of direction).

A great point was made about NASCAR also being probably the only major race series to not race in the rain. Why couldn't they throw on rain tires and race? Couldn't the drivers handle the changing conditions? Or are the cars that one dimensional that they become literally undrivable?

 

[NSXrunner]

I admire that they run on road courses. But I just have issues with cars that have decals for headlights. Aside from that I think oval racing is boring. Also since the cars are not exactly exciting to look at since they all look the same, its hard for me to cheer for Home Depot, Viagra, or the UPS car. Giving the car a name like the Chevy xxxxxx yet it has nothing in common with said road car, is just a flat out lie as far as I am concerned. Not a gripe, just a thought, because like everyone says if you don't like it, change the channel, which I do. :smile:

 

[PhiAlpha44]

I'm just saying NASCAR, on average, doesn't require the same set of skills or the level of pure talent that F1 does. This is simply because of the characteristics of the circuits raced on (high banked ovals - for the most part), and the performance levels of the car (inferior acceleration, braking, lateral grip, and change of direction).

That is exactly What I'm talking about. Pure talent? To me pure talent is not having so much technology in the car that it drives itself. Get rid of all the electronic assists that F1 cars have so we can really see who has PURE talent, and who is blessed with the best computer on wheels. Don't dog on drivers because of what they drive. And people talk about the monotony of ovals. Well.... I can see what you are saying there, but asses the tracks for what they are. Road courses races are basically drivers running a pattern around the track as fast as they can. Same breaking points, same acceleration points, same gears in each turn... over and over and over. Point being if you can do it more efficiently than the next guy you'll get ahead. But there isn't a whole lot of driver vs. driver. I was at the USGP this year. Formula 1 is like watching a parade. Hardly any passing, people generally finish in the order they start.... not very exciting. Agreed that running circles all day probably doesn't attest to the most exciting form of motor sports either but I think what you forget to look at is the interaction between drivers. Drafting, slingshot passes, teammates helping each other, 40+ guys traveling at that speed just inches away from each other, and PASSING each other. Nascar is like watching a football game, F1 is like watching golf. They're both different, they're both good for different reasons, but what I don't like is when somebody criticizes the SKILL of Nascar drivers because of the tracks they run on. I'm sure if you put Nascar drivers in F1 cars, they could follow each other around the track and it would look like a normal F1 event. I'm also pretty positive if you stuck F1 drivers in stock cars and put them at Daytona or Bristol, they'd wad each other up in 5 laps.

As far as running in the rain.. I think you bring up a good point. I'm not sure why they don't just toss some rain tires on and let them run. I think that would be exciting.

 

[POWERED by HONDA]

RSO34, Fantastic photos like always!

 

[PhiAlpha44]

Jeff Gordon doesn't come from a road racing background at ALL. He comes from the same, open wheel, dirt racing background as almost everyone else in the sport. That is 100% wrong. The whole reason he moved to Indiana from California was because sprint car racing is so much more competitive here.

 

[myopicpaideia]

That is exactly What I'm talking about. Pure talent? To me pure talent is not having so much technology in the car that it drives itself. Get rid of all the electronic assists that F1 cars have so we can really see who has PURE talent, and who is blessed with the best computer on wheels. Don't dog on drivers because of what they drive. And people talk about the monotony of ovals. Well.... I can see what you are saying there, but asses the tracks for what they are. Road courses races are basically drivers running a pattern around the track as fast as they can. Same breaking points, same acceleration points, same gears in each turn... over and over and over. Point being if you can do it more efficiently than the next guy you'll get ahead. But there isn't a whole lot of driver vs. driver. I was at the USGP this year. Formula 1 is like watching a parade. Hardly any passing, people generally finish in the order they start.... not very exciting. Agreed that running circles all day probably doesn't attest to the most exciting form of motor sports either but I think what you forget to look at is the interaction between drivers. Drafting, slingshot passes, teammates helping each other, 40+ guys traveling at that speed just inches away from each other, and PASSING each other. Nascar is like watching a football game, F1 is like watching golf. They're both different, they're both good for different reasons, but what I don't like is when somebody criticizes the SKILL of Nascar drivers because of the tracks they run on. I'm sure if you put Nascar drivers in F1 cars, they could follow each other around the track and it would look like a normal F1 event. I'm also pretty positive if you stuck F1 drivers in stock cars and put them at Daytona or Bristol, they'd wad each other up in 5 laps.

As far as running in the rain.. I think you bring up a good point. I'm not sure why they don't just toss some rain tires on and let them run. I think that would be exciting.

Well I would say you are exaggerating and have the typical American attitude of 'I want it now' when you say there is no passing in F1. I would liken it to a comparison between American Football and Real Football (where they use their feet). In Football when a goal is scored, it is a big deal. There is finesse in the game and it is fascinating to watch teams try to break each other down using ball movement before scoring. Same with F1. There is true finesse involved in F1 passing, with drivers feeling each other out and finding where their particular car can be faster on the track than the one in front, and when a passing maneuver is finally made, it is a big deal, very exciting. NASCAR on the other hand, like American Football, is a rough and tumble sport, bullying and shoving your way through through the field using brute force, with tons of contact and careening on the edge of violence and destruction. This is where I draw comparisons to the U.S. mentality vs. that of Europeans (on a stereotypical level of course) and can understand how lots of Americans "don't get it".

I guess if I were making a direct rebuttal to your no passing comment, I would reply with a similarly exaggerated statement like "Yeah, but NASCAR is like watching bumper cars going in a circle."

I am saying that yes, you need to have a larger skill set to drive a formula 1 car around a track than you do a NASCAR car. You need to think and react faster, and remember how to take more than 4 'turns' during a lap. Especially next year when F1 does away with all traction and stability control. Do you think everyone is going to suddenly start crashing and flying off of the track when that happens? And you honestly are of the opinion that you could take 22 NASCAR drivers and plop them in F1 cars and it would appear that a normal F1 race was going on? The carnage would befit any NASCAR event. You seem to think that these cars are on rails in a literal sense and not just a figurative one.

Take a look at how hard it is to actually get yourself into the seat of an F1 car...they put celebrities in NASCAR cars (some reality show) and they can lap an oval at over 150 mph with minimal practice. All I mean with this statement is, you really have to prove yourself one of the top 33 (top 22 to actually race one) drivers in your profession to even get into one of these F1 cars.

Listen, I'm really not trying to bag on NASCAR or its drivers. They are professionals and go faster than I ever have, and have more skill in every facet of driving than I have too. I'm just speaking relatively here. Am I the only one that thinks saying that NASCAR drivers are just as skilled as F1 drivers seems like saying, and actually believing, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old...(no offense to anyone who actually does believe that)

 

[myopicpaideia]

Jeff Gordon doesn't come from a road racing background at ALL. He comes from the same, open wheel, dirt racing background as almost everyone else in the sport. That is 100% wrong. The whole reason he moved to Indiana from California was because sprint car racing is so much more competitive here.

That is entirely correct, by the way. Jeff was a quarter midget short track racer in the beginning...

 

[dave22]

Get rid of all the electronic assists that F1 cars have so we can really see who has PURE talent, and who is blessed with the best computer on wheels.

What? Whay would NASCAR need traction control? They start at nearly top speed and stay there until the race is over.

When NASCAR adopts the standing start and 1st gear turns you can recite that My guys don't use traction control so they're more talented mumbo jumbo again.

Also, how can you defend the talent of the NASCER drivers by saying they can do just as well as F1 drivers on a road course, then say F1 drivers would wad each other up in five laps? That's not biased at all.

 

[PhiAlpha44]

There is a standing start every time they leave the pits, and they don't have to use "launch control". I'm not arguing that F1 Drivers don't "use" a larger skill set, I'm just saying that imo F1 drivers are not always the BEST in the WORLD. Most connected, most financially backed, driving the most technologically advanced? Yes. I don't think that makes them the best drivers in the world. If that was the case JPM should be CLEANING HOUSE in Nascar.... because look... he was one of the "top drivers in the WORLD". No he wasn't. He was well connected. And now that he's not in F1, is he less talented than when he was? No. He's the exact same driver.

I don't find it impressive that "professional drivers" need electronic assists. If you want to call it "bumper cars in a circle" that's fine. Maybe the amazing thing is they can run around a track as long as they can and NOT turn it into bumper cars. Throughout a Nascar race there is more CLOSE RACING, much less passing. I'll continue to watch 43 cars, running around a track for 2 hours, at distances closer than parked cars in a parking lot, sometimes 3 wide... as opposed to computers on wheels driving in a really fast parade. And it's not because I like things "americanized".... it's because it's a better brand of racing to watch.

I'm not a computer or mechanical engineer. I'm not interested in electronic servos actuating the valves on an F1 engine to prevent valve float. I want to watch HUMAN BEINGS race each other, and too much of that relationship is lost in F1.... which imo makes it boring. I'm glad Ferrari and McLaren build better computers on wheels than the other manufacturers. I'm sure those 2 teams will continue to win everything. Enjoy tuning into the next F1 race. I'm sure somebody from one of those 2 teams will win. OOOH the suspense!

 

[comtec]

Same with F1. There is true finesse involved in F1 passing, with drivers feeling each other out and finding where their particular car can be faster on the track than the one in front, and when a passing maneuver is finally made, it is a big deal, very exciting.

Dude, you just described pretty much all racing series including NASCAR.

NASCAR on the other hand, like American Football, is a rough and tumble sport, bullying and shoving your way through through the field using brute force, with tons of contact and careening on the edge of violence and destruction.

That just shows you no nothing about NASCAR. Guess thats all you see on sports highlights .

What? Whay would NASCAR need traction control? They start at nearly top speed and stay there until the race is over.

Once again someone that doesn't know anything about NASCAR. Ever hear of tire wear? Do you think they can go 195+ through a corner at Bristol or Martinsville or pretty much anywhere but Daytona or Talladega?

Also, how can you defend the talent of the NASCER drivers by saying they can do just as well as F1 drivers on a road course, then say F1 drivers would wad each other up in five laps? That's not biased at all.

He didn't say they could do as good as F1 drivers he said it would look like a normal race (ie....no passing)


btw....I have watched F1 and NASCAR for years. In the past few years i haven't kept up with F! as much as i once did but that is because MS freakin won everything . (Williams Fan here :biggrin: )

 

[dave22]

JPM should be CLEANING HOUSE in Nascar.... because look... he was one of the "top drivers in the WORLD". No he wasn't. He was well connected. And now that he's not in F1, is he less talented than when he was? No. He's the exact same driver.

JPM is of course a bad example. He's not good at much of anything. If there was a sport for blaming everybody but yourself for your shortcomings he'd be CLEANING HOUSE at that. Nothing else really suits him.

I want to watch HUMAN BEINGS race each other

Then watch the Olympics.

Once again someone that doesn't know anything about NASCAR. Ever hear of tire wear?

Nope. I've never heard of tire wear.

Do you think they can go 195+ through a corner at Bristol or Martinsville or pretty much anywhere but Daytona or Talladega?

They can sure try.

 

[comtec]

They can sure try.

Yeah, F1 drivers never crash .




<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sJUUsbmfXQY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sJUUsbmfXQY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

[NSXrunner]

Yeah, F1 drivers never crash .




<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sJUUsbmfXQY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sJUUsbmfXQY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

HAHA I remember seeing that race on TV. Everyone crashes. But in F1's defense they do at least race in conditions that are less than adequate for NASCAR, which explains SOME, not all the mishaps. I don't think I have ever seen a NASCAR race in the rain or fog, and if they did the race was called off soon after. Probably has to do with those decal headlights. :tongue:

 

[myopicpaideia]

Dude, you just described pretty much all racing series including NASCAR.

Oh really? Where on an oval track to you attempt to outbreak your opponent, for an example?

That just shows you know nothing about NASCAR. Guess thats all you see on sports highlights .

Fine, I admit that I only watch the road course races and the big ones, like Daytona. Which, by the way, reinforced my views again this year, just take a look at the end of the race! How long did it take to complete the final laps? And what sort of debacle at the end was that?

Once again someone that doesn't know anything about NASCAR. Ever hear of tire wear? Do you think they can go 195+ through a corner at Bristol or Martinsville or pretty much anywhere but Daytona or Talladega?

Yeah, whoever can drive fast while managing their outside tires the best wins, what does that have to do with the traction control issue? The point is how many lateral g's do NASCAR cars go through in corners, changing direction, braking? Is it anywhere near 4 to 4.5? Oh...thought not. Launching out of the pits? Please...also, F1 has only very recently had traction control. For the vast majority of its history it hasn't been there, and it is going away again next year.

He didn't say they could do as good as F1 drivers he said it would look like a normal race (ie....no passing)

It would look like a normal NASCAR road race (see pictures above). The opposing argument is that NASCAR cars are harder to drive than Formula 1 cars, right? And this is because NASCAR cars are inferior vehicles, so the argument is that it takes more skill to drive a NASCAR fast than it does an F1 car, right? I would buy that argument if it were on a level playing field. However from a relative standpoint, I maintain that it is much harder to drive an F1 car at a competitive race pace respective to its race series, than it is to drive a NASCAR car at a competitive race pace respective to its series.

Listen, no one is saying NASCAR drivers have no talent. It seems elementary to me that it takes more to drive the highest performance race cars on the planet than it does to drive a car with a lower performance plateau.

F1 has more demanding cars to drive, both physically and mentally, and races on more demanding tracks, both physically and mentally.

Now, I do acknowledge that NASCAR is perfectly suited for American media purposes. There are crashes all the time, "close" racing - meaning "rubbin's racing", and you have plenty of commercial showing opportunities with all the pit stops and cautions that occur.

Just another point on something mentioned before. If you think NASCAR is driver vs. driver and there is no machine element, you are deluding yourself. Why don't they just mandate standard suspension settings, tire pressures, steering ratios, etc. then, and make every car and its setup exactly alike, and then find out who the best driver is?

For a real test of who the best drivers in the world are, I personally like the race of champions event they do. It is awesome to see the best drivers from their respective series go at it head to head. That is good stuff.

 

[myopicpaideia]

Yeah, F1 drivers never crash .
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sJUUsbmfXQY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sJUUsbmfXQY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Yes, of course use conditions which never exist in NASCAR to "prove" your point . Let's see NASCAR drivers attempt to race on a road course in pouring rain. And notice how you had to go back a few years to even get footage of an F1 pile up. In almost every other race there is a pile up of some kind in NASCAR.