Beasts me, I seem to remember Donohue setting the mark at 160? 170-something? at Indy, a flat track, back when I stopped keeping track of that "average" stuff.
IndyCar is above averagesI guess IndyCar would do about 240, easy, at Daytona?
What speeds did the new, undeveloped IndyCar set at Phoenix yesterday? Around 170? NASCAR would be, what, about 130 there?
Of course, smaller track, lesser banks. We need to help the general public understand these things. You're doing a great job helping
"Each day well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well therefore to this one day for it, and it alone, is life"
~ Sanskrit poem attributed to Kalidasa, "Salutation to the Dawn"
Brian's Wish
There are six questions, one "beats me" and a guess in your post. Maybe that's why the general public is confused by what you preach.
194.175MPH = Factual, official, faster
Slow, but factual
Just think, the DW12 might lap the Cup cars every seven laps or so at Daytona. Wow.
Provide us with factual information about every Indycar race that was run faster than this one.Originally Posted by Turn13
Every IndyCar race run the last 20 years was run with faster cars than the Cup cars of the same year. FACT.
You like faster tracks, just watch ovals. You like faster cars, watch IndyCar. You want to see the world's fastest oval racing, watch IndyCar's oval racing.
Some people understand that averages will be higher for races of fewer laps, and for ovals vs. roads and streets. This thread (and others) will help the people that don't understand that
I picked up a little tid-bit last night about NASCAR's built-in number envy, when it comes to IndyCar. Bill France made many comments, repeatedly, about how important it was for Daytona to be no less than 2.5 miles, and to utilize the banking and geometry to be faster than Indy. That's why they even used to actually be faster there. Maybe that's why they needed to have a "World 600" - to "top" the "Indy 500".
Barnum was right - and now maybe that's why American cars have trouble competing with the rest of the world that competes in F1, Le Mans, etc.
I couldn't find a single instance when Indycars ran a race faster than the 194.175MPH NASCAR race run this afternoon.
One would think that with cars that run so much faster that they would have done so at least once in the history of racing. Maybe you can provide us with info about any Indycar race that was faster?
I just watched an oval race that was faster than any Indycar race ever. A 194.175MPH NASCAR Cup race.
Not impressed, sorry
IndyCar still has the speed record for the year, 210 plus.
Happy for you, though
Too bad that speed is unsustainable for an entire race. Too bad that speed isn't available on city street races. Too bad Indycar races at slower speeds than NASCAR.
But as long as you are content with watching slower racing, more power to you.
NASCAR Bud Shootout race average = 124mph
NASCAR Gatorade Duel 1 race average = 159mph
NASCAR Gatorade Duel 2 race average = 194mph*
Indycar still looking to supply field with engines
* fastest race of the season
They may be fooling you, but they're not fooling me. I've seen them in person, and I understand where the numbers come from.
http://www.trackforum.com/forums/sho...ndyCar-History....
What, I'm just supposed to forget? I should be mesmerized by your repetition? You think you can trick me into believing that which is not true?
210 > 194. IndyCars are faster than Cuppers.
The numbers I present come complete from the official race results of the respective series. Yours come from practice sessions, poor memory and a select few race tracks. No foolin'.
What Indycar race was faster than yesterday's Duel #2? You haven't answered that question. Find a faster Indycar race and I'll concede your point. No foolin'.
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 02-24-2012 at 08:15 AM.
.
Are you guys still going with this? The circle won't become any better defined as you keep going round and round it...
Speed became synonymous with the Fontana track almost from its inception. Sam Hornish recorded the track record for the fastest average speed (207.151 mph) in winning the IndyCar Series race in 2003.
BTW, that was for 400 miles.
Nov. 3, 2002: Jimmy Vasser won the final 500-mile race in CART/Champ Car history. The race also set the track record (at the time) for average race speed at 197.995 mph.
new sig pending
I think Fontana had six laps of caution? I'm not even sure if anyone wrecked or if it was just debris.
Kentucky 2003 was also above 197 (don't have the number in front of me). Cup averaged 127 at Michigan that same day.
Helped by there being only one full course caution, the Kentucky Speedway race became the fastest IRL race in history with Hornish Jr. maintaining an average speed of 197.897 mph. Later that year, Fontana took the record back.
Ok, that's three.
As I said before, I don't understand why some fans are so sensitive to this idea.
It's pretty simple - if it was remarkable for one car to go 190 mph, it should be even more remarkable for another to go 220 mph on a similar type of track.
Maybe that means some people just don't know
I already did - in the link in post 221 before you asked (again)
This must be my point you concededThanks!
And this idea of yours that IndyCar must have a faster time in the same day... my buddy has a Ferrari, but just because he leaves it in the garage one day doesn't make my Honda Fit a faster car just because I bring it outFaster is still faster.
You keep making these assertions as if the type of track isn't relative, that the number of laps, the number of yellows, the number of pitstops or the number of corners doesn't matter, and as if the frequency of races somehow matters when it comes to measuring speed. What you are missing is speed is relative. 65 mph on a six-lame superelevated highway isn't as exciting as 65 mph around a city street corner - and it's the excitement and skill and exhiliration that counts, not the absolute average mph.
Oh, so now it has to be on the same day?What Indycar race was faster than yesterday's Duel #2? You haven't answered that question. Find a faster Indycar race and I'll concede your point.
IndyCars are faster - any track, any day - I know it, you know it, and that's all that matters
Last edited by Turn13; 02-24-2012 at 08:23 PM.
If your buddy drives that Ferrari in downtown rush hour traffic while you are driving on the Interstate in Montana which vehicle will be driven at the higher speed? Faster is only faster if it actually happens. Indycar needs to actually show the speed if they want it to be recognized.my buddy has a Ferrari, but just because he leaves it in the garage one day doesn't make my Honda Fit a faster car just because I bring it out
I agree with that - I think IndyCar needs to show the speed - Superimposed images of a Cup car and and IndyCar qualifying on the same track would do it nicely
I just think speed is relative to the track and conditions. Most people do, don't they?
I suspect most people recognize that 55 mph on a tight, downtown corner is faster than 55 mph on a bigger, superelevated interstate curve. That's why they would say the first example was "too fast", and the second one "too slow" - even though both were 55.
That's just common sense
Arguing with you has helped me to better appreciate something, though - IndyCars do two things Cup cars can't: 210 - 220 on the big tracks, and 20 - 40 mph faster on the smaller, tighter turns, too.
Any track, any day
Sure it was. If ever starts after the second race at Texas last year.
Willie P. 114 laps. 0 cautions. 206.693 average speed.
1- 9/21/2003, Fontana, Sam Hornish, Jr. 1:55:51.451 207.151 mph
2- 8/17/2003, Kentucky, Sam Hornish, Jr. 197.897 mph
Indycar sure doesn't.
If you own a Ferrari and do the vast majority of your driving downtown then you are either an idiot or a poseur.
They do - there are just some people (like you, perhaps) that don't get it. IndyCar needs to help them out, somehow.
So, do you agree that 55 mph around a tight, downtown corner is probably considered "too fast", while 55 mph on a typically big, superelevated interstate curve with a posted speed limit of 65 mph is "too slow" ?
Or are we going to get some twisted semantic in response to that simple question?
I consider 65mph to be faster than 55mph.
Just like scoring in golf - the question is not "how?", but "how many?".
Why not just answer the question?
Is 55 mph too fast for a flat, downtown street corner with a radius of <75' ? Is 55 mph too slow for a superelevated highway curve with a radius of 27,000'?
"Fast" is relative.
"Too much" or "too little" speed is relative to the landscape and context.
The excitement of the sensation of speed is relative as well - a ride on a 60 mph roller coaster is more exhilirating than a nap on a 747 at 535 mph.
The sensation of speed has as much to do with acceleration and deceleration, as well - measured in g's. Wanna go there?
Whatever turns you on. 55 is faster than 45, 65 is faster than 55. Big curve, esses, high-banks, flat corners, faster is faster. A Honda Fit at 85 is faster than a Ferrari at 35.
No, the perception of "fast" is relative. Faster is faster."Fast" is relative.
Which is why you are clouding the issue with "too much" and "too little"."Too much" or "too little" speed is relative to the landscape and context.
So you want to say that Indycar is more exhilirating? Fine. But that sense of exhiliration is achieved at a slower speed most of the time.The excitement of the sensation of speed is relative as well - a ride on a 60 mph roller coaster is more exhilirating than a nap on a 747 at 535 mph.
I just want to measure MPH on race day like the rest of the viewers do.The sensation of speed has as much to do with acceleration and deceleration, as well - measured in g's. Wanna go there?
Perception is reality - and it's also what the product is selling. We're revolving on earth's axis at 25,000 mph - but it's just not enough
It's not clouding the question - it IS the question. Why don't you just answer the question?Which is why you are clouding the issue with "too much" and "too little".
You're getting closer- an IndyCar is faster than a Cup car on all of thoseBig curve, esses, high-banks, flat corners, faster is faster.
YES! That's what I think people need help to realizeSo you want to say that Indycar is more exhilirating? Fine.So what? The point about the entertainment value of speed is being too fast for relative conditionsBut that sense of exhiliration is achieved at a slower speed most of the time.The point is to ACHIEVE that exhiliration.
Too fast is, well, faster
I don't think most viewers do. NASCAR fans don't care that much about it - they want action, rubbing, two-step tandems, and all that.I just want to measure MPH on race day like the rest of the viewers do.
But then, maybe they don't think about it. Maybe a lot of other potential fans would. It appeals to me.
But go ahead, measure MPH. And let's also measure G forces.
NASCAR is not going to register a higher maximum value in either one, at the end of the season.
So, ready to answer the question? What is 'too fast'?
Is 55 mph too fast for a flat, downtown street corner with a radius of <75' ? Is 55 mph too slow for a superelevated highway curve with a radius of 27,000'?
Not fast, not "too fast". Faster or Slower. One or the other. Most often faster is by NASCAR. Admit it.
I already acknowledged NASCAR runs slower cars on faster tracks more often - big deal - I also noted that doesn't really appeal to me as much as watching faster cars does.
In my opinion NASCAR isn't too fast on any track they run at.
So you're really saying 55 mph isn't too fast for a street corner turn? ReallY?
Let's do this, since you have trouble answering - is 250 mph too fast for Daytona? Is 120 mph too slow for Indy?
IndyCar runs closer to the physical limit than Cup cars do, on every track they race on. They're much more likely to hold the all-time speed record wherever they go. That to me is much more interesting. I think most people would agree... if they could get past the misperceptions as you've demonstrated here
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks