I really have a hard time believing that most of the public wouldn't look at both a Nascar and an Indycar and assume the Indycar is faster. Why bother convincing the public of something they already know?Originally Posted by Turn13
I really have a hard time believing that most of the public wouldn't look at both a Nascar and an Indycar and assume the Indycar is faster. Why bother convincing the public of something they already know?
A lot of people don't even know what an IndyCar is, compared to NASCAR.
Why not? Speed is good, isn't it?Why bother convincing the public of something they already know?
I think it is an accomplishment to perform as much faster than a Cup car does.It isn't an accomplishment, it is an expectation.
Can you answer the question, what is the highest speed NASCAR achieves on any track any more?
"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
Actually, I think most people do know what a Indy Car is.
Which is a big problem if you think about it.
Prime Minister of Gackland
They know that it's a car that races at Indy and has wheels... the problem isn't that they don't know what it is, it's that they don't care what it is. They've been running 200mph for 30 years... if all you've got is fast, then you're outdated.
Every space shuttle flight was a hell of an accomplishment, but people quit watching those too. When public perception determines that that accomplishment is routine, they cease to be excited or interested. Speed is good, that's great. But Indycars have been hitting speeds faster than the cup cars are currently at for 30 years. A sizeable number of current fans weren't even alive when Indycars first started hitting 200 without a draft.
Answer: I don't know and I really don't care. They aren't attempting to go any faster so I don't pay any attention to their actual speeds. I suspect I'm not alone in this. If a series isn't actually about top speeds, you can't expect anybody to care about speeds that much.
I'm not sure Indycar even knows what Indycar is about anymore.
For me, it's about going faster.
Maybe other people would appreciate that, too, if they were more aware.
Pretty sure not everyone finds speed boring as you seem to assert.
And being faster would seem to be better than not. Superlatives do have their place
What is it that annoys you about it? What's it to you? Why does it bother you to have people state the obvious? What does it take away from you?
Last edited by Turn13; 03-11-2012 at 10:24 AM.
I heard on Speed last night that the Cup cars "set a new track record" at LVMS during qualifying on Saturday.
How could that be track record when they didn't even sniff the 200mph mark?
How many of those fans were able to see a new record set?
If the space shuttle had been doing something dramatically new, it would have got more notoriety. No doubt, it often was doing something new, but people just didn't have the information and understanding to appreciate it.
I think we should help people understand the difference between NASCAR's "200 mph" claims and the actual speeds (and "speed") that IndyCars attain. And that they do it without the banking, or a draft. And with less HP. And on tighter turns and shorter straights. And we should push that envelope, and set new speed records, and recognize them for what they are.
Makes one wonder why they bother to call it the "Speed" channel. Maybe they should call it "Rubbin". Or "Personality"Can you answer the question, what is the highest speed NASCAR achieves on any track any more?
Track, distance, fast lap (time in seconds) (car#)
Daytona 500 2.5mi. 198.665mph (45.3024 sec) (#29)
Phoenix 312 1.0mi. 133.19mph (27.03sec) (#48)
Las Vegas 400 1.5mi. 187.748mph (28.762sec) (#48)
NASCAR season average 3 races 5.0mi. 101.0944sec 178.05mph
Indycar season average (no races) 0.00mph
Wow NASCAR is even faster than F1.
You do not seem to be helping out your point.
There is a point to it?
NASCAR top lap speed for the year - 198.665
Indycar top lap sped for the year - 0.00
Ok, so far, NASCAR is up. Lets revisit this after May shall we.
Like I tried to demonstrate with the Usain Bolt example, using season averages to try and prove fastest is meaningless. When people want to know who is faster, they only care about absolutes.
If Usain Bolt races 17 times and loses to Mr. Smith 10-7 he is occasionally faster, but more often slower. Ultimately he may post the fastest race of the season, but Mr. Smith is most often the faster of the two.
Only if they are racing on the same tracks at the same time.
NASCAR and INDYCAR usually race on the same TV sets on the same weekend. And we all know which entity most often is racing faster when that happens.
Since when is NASCAR going to race Indycar? And how would NASCAR win any race against Indycar since they are so much slower?
Edit: I just read your above post. You are looney.
I stand corrected... one person bought Smith's 'fastest man alive' shirt
The only way to really settle this will be to work out the averages on the common denominators.
Unless I'm mistaken, there is are 4 tracks that form a 'common schedule' between the NASCAR and Indycar's top series.
-Indy
-Fontana
-Texas
-Infineon/Sears point
Thats 4 tracks... a 2.5 mile 4 corner oval, a 2 mile superspeeday, a 1.5 mile high banked oval, and a road course. I think that is more than enough to make a valid comparison, the only thing missing is a short oval comparison.
I'm not going to keep posting in this thread as it is getting pointless, other than to check back in after each series races at these 4 common tracks.
I don't really care about who does what more often, only who does it faster. More often is irrelevant to the discussion: Thrust SSC is officially recognized as the fastest land speed vehicle in existence. It only did it once (twice if you want to count both north and south runs, but for the purpose of the record these are averaged to create a single 'run'). It doesn't matter how many other cars have gone faster each weekend, or more often.
If Nascar achieves a faster closed course lap in 2012 than Indycar does, I'll happily proclaim Nascar as faster. I'll buy a Hendrick motorsport cap, shave 88 into my chest hair, sell my car, move to the US, buy a pickup, put a #3 sticker in the back window and spend all of 2013 following the Sprint Cup all around the US.
How about this. Put a NASCAR and an Indycar on any track, oval, road course doesn't matter. An Indycar would set a faster time, hands down.
Why is it necessary for you to exclude those city street races when determining which series is faster? They are the most common form of INDYCAR racing we'll see in 2012.
"We're faster (if you don't count most of our races)." What a great slogan for the series.
IndyCar's non-ovals average a higher mph than NASCAR's non-ovals.
So do their ovals
But NASCAR will have a faster average overall. Cuz they're faster.IndyCar's non-ovals average a higher mph than NASCAR's non-ovals.
So do their ovals
Maybe, their average of lap averages will be. That's a pretty homogenized, bastardized stat when you have direct comparisons to use - every one of which registers IndyCar as faster. IndyCar was faster by that stat in 2010, too, but they have a new car now and a schedule light on ovals, for a number of reasons - partly because they have had a concerning safety record lately. That happens when you actually push the limits and race close to the edge.
But, yes, as acknowledged previously, probably more than once, NASCAR has many more ovals, which raise their average, but none that are faster - and indeed, several IndyCar non-ovals are faster than NASCAR ovals.
But why are we using averages of average averages? As I pointed out, I could drive to Baltimore from Brownsburg in my Honda Fit and average a higher pace than NASCAR's Cup Cars run the Martinsville race. Big whoop. To me, that's not what it means to be "faster". Circumstances and conditions DO matter, to anyone but a nincompoop or an agenda-driver.
IndyCar's already gone faster than NASCAR probably will all year, on track. They will set the highest trap speeds in almost every event. Cup cars will never approach the highest speeds set by IndyCars on a variety of tracks. But you poo-poo it. You'd criticize The Mona Lisa for not showing any teeth
I was so pissed when I saw you had the gall to rate NASCAR over IndyCar at Las Vegas, even though IndyCar lapped the track 20 or 30 mph faster just a few months ago. But no, you give them "0 mph", because they didn't go back after losing Dan. Class move, PP. Maybe we'll get the chance to introduce you to his widow at Indy. Maybe you can shoot your sneeing lip off at Dario when you see him, tell him what you really think.
Then why are you using it? It isn't at all what I have proposed.We're talking about "this year", not 2010.IndyCar was faster by that stat in 2010
We aren't. Maybe the methodology is too advanced for you to follow, but it isn't an average of averages.But why are we using averages of average averages?I'm using every circumstance and condition on each series' race schedule because they ALL matter. You are the one who wants to leave out some of the races or weight them differently.Circumstances and conditions DO matter, to anyone but a nincompoop or an agenda-driver.
No, I agreed with that tiny aspect of the 2012 season. Did you miss that one, too?IndyCar's already gone faster than NASCAR probably will all year, on track. They will set the highest trap speeds in almost every event. Cup cars will never approach the highest speeds set by IndyCars on a variety of tracks. But you poo-poo it.
Are you drunk? I merely stated the lap speed for the 2012 NASCAR race. When INDYCAR races there in 2012 I'll post it. No "rating" is assigned, just raw MPH.I was so pissed when I saw you had the gall to rate NASCAR over IndyCar at Las Vegas, even though IndyCar lapped the track 20 or 30 mph faster just a few months ago. But no, you give them "0 mph", because they didn't go back after losing Dan. Class move, PP.
Wow, maybe you are drunk. Go sleep it off.Maybe we'll get the chance to introduce you to his widow at Indy. Maybe you can shoot your sneeing lip off at Dario when you see him, tell him what you really think.
Lap averages are averages. A slick way for you to count "103 mph" on a track where IndyCar might hit 200 mph.
Good - that makes IndyCar faster. Congratulations
I rarely drink, though there's a couple nights in May I make an exception. Just think before you post, PP. There are real people on the track. You like to make your cutting little remarks, but this is a real community. Show some class.
Maybe it's time to end this one, for both your sakes.
SorryI told myself after PP's post about LV to just walk away, and I did - for a couple days
We're using two different definitions. That's fine. I know which means more to me.
I know it, you know it, and that's all that matters
You are referring to my reporting of the 2012 statistics as a classless act? Really?
Let's end this madness before you have a freaking stroke.
Indycars are faster than Cup cars in a head-to-head setting.
INDYCAR races are, more often than not, conducted at slower speeds than Cup races.
Agreed?
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 03-14-2012 at 10:43 AM.
I think you "comparing" Cup's 2012 LV speed to IndyCar's "0 mph" as you did was a callous remark in light of why IndyCar is no longer racing there.
As I noted, we agree on the details - what we disagree on is which best meets the definition of "faster". You have yours, and most informed people have another. You are the one belaboring a point with averages and statistical contortions, for who knows what reason. Is NASCAR's highest average lap speed higher? Possibly - I don't know, I don't have that data. Don't care. If IndyCar hits a higher speed than NASCAR is capable of, that fits my definition - and the one in most dictionaries.
IndyCar hits much higher speeds in practice and in races than the lap average statistic can account for. Why don't you consider highest trap speeds? Why do you discount head-to-head and absolute speeds? Why do you ignore rates of acceleration, deceleration, and cornering G's? Why do you argue that being faster is somehow cumulative, so that running slower speeds more often somehow is faster? Again and again and again, who knows.
IndyCar is faster. I think more people should knowThe faster speed is one of the things I appreciate and enjoy about the series. I'm sure Jimmy Johnson would agree
If it doesn't matter to you, let it go. If NASCAR having some narrow bandwidth of an advantage in some contorted calculation of average lap speeds excites you, if you think that's what fans are interested in, if you think NASCAR needs it, go for it - start your own thread.
Look at post #371. It also says: Indycar (no races). I posted last weekend's results exactly the same way. The only comparison made was 2012 races (3 for NASCAR) to 2012 races (no races for INDYCAR).
Your interpretation is incorrect and your accusations are unwarranted.
But are they faster than the space shuttle when it is on my tv set?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks