I never said one was easier than the other either. I just think it's ignorant to play down the talents of Nascar drivers all the time. I don't think F1 drivers are more "skilled" than the others. It's just different. I also said I think you could plop Nascar Drivers into F1 cars and I think you'd have a race. Yes it maybe a second or two off the normal speeds at first until they got used to things, but I think they could manage. Because all they have to do is FOLLOW EACH OTHER around the road course. I'm saying if you plopped F1 drivers into stock cars, and let them all run 3 wide out of the tri-oval at Daytona they would wet themselves. :biggrin:
P.S. Nobody here is going to convince me that F1 drivers have more talent than Nascar drivers because of the type of cars they drive or the elitist atmosphere of F1. I think if F1 drivers are the best drivers in the world, then they certainly don't need Traction Control, Launch control and anti-lock brakes. See... that's where the "skill" comes in. Your right foot is supposed to be your traction control and your anti-lock brakes. How many F1 cars ever stall coming out of the pits? None? Hmm... I guess that's because there is a button they can press to get the cars rolling. Nascar could do that.... but then that would take away from the drama of a pit-stop.
Wow, talk about ignorant. And you were berating me for not knowing anything about NASCAR. You seem to think that there is no clutch in an F1 car or something, as if it were the same as an automatic with paddle shifters you can get on a Honda Fit.
The clutch indeed needs to be engaged, which is why there are
4 buttons on the back of an F1 steering wheel (Two for gears and two for clutch engagement). F1 cars
rarely, not never, stall out of the pits because the drivers are good at driving their cars at all speeds. It happens more often during the standing start at the beginning of the race, however. Also, anti-lock brakes are not allowed in F1, nor are even power brakes, so do your research if you want to have a constructive discussion. Have you ever even seen an F1 race? Drivers lock up under braking all the time! Launch control is banned as well. Sheesh...just because it looks effortless from the stands or the TV doesn't mean it actually is, my friend. That's where the skill comes in, making it look easy.
As for the traction control, to quote myself:
Myopicpaideia said:
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.
As to your 3 wide scenario, I'd like to see your NASCAR drivers go three wide through the streets of Monaco. I'm sure that's feasible.
I'm sure F1 drivers would have no trouble going 3 wide with the expansive room afforded them on a big wide open oval track. That's apples to oranges, man, let's make some decent comparisons here, if there are even any to make.
F1 is also driver and crew and team vs. driver and crew and team. It's just that in F1 the team also includes mechanical and electrical engineers and aerodynamicists that also need to be top notch. A comment was made that implied that an F1 team didn't need to have a fantastic crew and team to be competitive, or that is somehow wasn't as important in F1. That seems to be a very misguided comment. If anything, these elements are more important in a non-spec series such as F1.
The basic gist of the arguments I'm hearing now is that F1 cars drive themselves, there is no passing, and drafting and sling-shot passing on the straights and running three wide on an oval track at very high speed are more daunting tasks than braking from 200 mph to 40mph in less than 3 seconds into a 180 degree hairpin while at the same time trying pass the other guy outside of the optimal racing line,
all without the aid of traction control for the majority of the series' history, and will be the case again next year
I don't think the politics and elitism you speak of come into the discussion of driver talent pool. And I reiterate that I am not here to say NASCAR drivers have no talent...but wouldn't you think, with all the money in F1 that if they were good enough to be there, they would be pushing to get a seat?
We can talk about the costs of entering into the different series, and to actually be competitive in the different series, and how elitism goes into it because of these costs of entry and whatnot, but that just seems to be a hollow argument. Of course it costs more to run a competitive F1 team than a competitive NASCAR team. There is constant R&D going on, because the cars are always being developed.
But, that doesn't follow with our discussion about an average NASCAR driver and an average F1 driver. And I also understand that the raw, unrefined, and visceral nature of NASCAR is very appealing to a lot of people. It is marketed that way and targeted towards the sort of people and demographic that gravitate to that. I appreciate that style of entertainment is attractive to lots of people.
It's just that none of the points made here trying to downplay F1 drivers' talents are true. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, traction control only works under power, it is not allowed to do any braking for the driver (as it does in the street car derivative of this technology), and can do nothing for you if you go into a turn too hot. The only thing traction control does in F1 really is allow you to get out of a turn faster by modulating the power to the rear wheels on exit. You can say it is boring because there is not enough passing for you, or your 3 wide rubbin's racing and that is fine as your opinion. You're welcome to it as it is your right as a human being. It just seems that you all are not open to the idea that there are some racing series that require more from drivers than others. You may hate F1 for its elitist culture or the fact that there are no Americans in the series, or whatever it is, but man, to say it is just as hard or harder to drive a car on high banked oval tracks than to drive one on opposite camber, changing elevation, hairpin and chicane filled road courses just doesn't seem to be a logical thought process. More like close-minded fanaticism... I don't know...
.
