NASCAR races are more often conducted at higher speeds than INDYCAR races. They race more often and on the weekends that both series race NASCAR more often races at higher speeds than INDYCAR. No averages needed for that fact. The type of racecourse is a significant factor in this, but that isn't NASCAR's fault because they choose to give their fans faster racing.Originally Posted by ForzaFerrari
But they never race as fast as IndyCar does.
Says the lady who suggests we use lap averages to compare ovals and non-ovals
Baby steps! Congratulations on your new milestone
They give their fans what they want, but that isn't faster racing, nor the fastest capable on the same tracks. It's just more frequent oval races, at lower speeds than IndyCar on the same type of tracks.
If your logic was valid, Martinsville would be the least popular, lowest-rated Cup race all year. We'd be able to predict attendance and TV ratings by lap speed. Is that the case?
"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
Your math is fine (this time), but you somehow neglect to use the entire season in your calculations. Why? What is it about the INDYCAR schedule that make you afraid to consider all of it?
Cheer up. In just 12 weekends you'll be able to simply say "INDYCAR raced at higher speeds than NASCAR this weekend" and spare us the excuses.
Where did I neglect anything? I compared all the ovals, and I compared all the non-ovals. That's because I didn't want to be stupidI didn't leave anything out. I think it's smarter to compare head-to-head events, but I see this as making concessions when dealing with an irrational argument
Such as someone makes when comparing speeds on varying courses. It's a strawman argument.
Funny. Schedule vs schedule, weekend vs weekend, NASCAR most often gives us faster racing. In fact, they will be faster every Race Day until the last week in May.Where did I neglect anything? I compared all the ovals, and I compared all the non-ovals. That's because I didn't want to be stupid
Such as someone makes when comparing speeds on varying courses. It's a strawman argument.
Your excuses will continue until then, I'm sure.
Your definition is different, that's all. What you call "faster" is actually slower than IndyCar would be, on the same track. That ovals are faster than some non-ovals isn't disputed, though that's the strawman you keep trying to foist. IndyCars are capable of moving more swiftly - that's the definition if "faster" we are using. All you're doing is comparing apples to oranges, plainly, in response to an argument that was never made.
IndyCar races faster than NASCAR on ovals. They race faster than NASCAR on non-ovals. They set absolutely higher faster speeds during the year, and they also set higher faster speeds at the same tracks NASCAR races on. IndyCars would lap Cup cars perhaps fifty times in a 500 mile raceYour only claim to being faster is that IndyCar runs fewer ovals. A technicality, and meaningless to most when discussing which series is "faster", but a drum you're pleased to beat loudly. And no doubt, one that the man in the street may be fooled buy - if they even know IndyCar exists
I'm not making any excuses or avoiding a damn thing - but you clearly have been - from avoiding answering truthfully two simple, yes or no questions - to your belaboring the obvious with strawman arguments and twisted "average of averages" stats and nonsensical definitions of "faster" where the faster car is slower and going too fast is slower than going too slow.
Why anyone would go to such lengths to try and deny an obvious superlative for a series they are supposedly a fan of (though obviously you must not like 12/17ths of the schedule) is beyond me, but I'm sure others have drawn simple conclusions.
IndyCar may struggle this year to average higher speeds - they have new cars and engines, they have extraordinary safety concerns, they've lost many ovals on the schedule - but they are still faster, head to head, than NASCAR, on any track, any day. If more people knew that, they might find it interesting. Speed, after all, is used to sell series less capable of it. And that's what the opening post was saying.
What one track would a cup car be faster than an IndyCar?
What section of any track would a cup car be faster than an IndyCar?
I can't think of any.
Hell, physics tells me there aren't any.
She's simply going to say that NASCAR has more races and fewer non-ovals, so they have higher lap averages on more days of the year. Even though they are never as fast as Indycar anywhere- even on the same tracks, their top speed is lower, their oval average is lower, and their non-oval average is lower.
The type of racecourse is the ONLY factor in this.The type of racecourse is a significant factor in this,
In the end, to those who pay even a modicum of attention (and the amateur mathematicians among us), Penelope's work and 15 pages of thread provides only the trivial solution to the equation; ergo oval tracks with a length equal to or greater than 1 mile result in higher average speeds than road courses.
new sig pending
Yes, and that IndyCars on those same tracks would be faster than Cup cars.
I know it, you know it, and that's all that matters
Unless they can't get an engine
See you on Race Day, slowpokes.
Not if we see you first, PP
You know why? 'Cause we're faster
You've conveniently ignored the rest of my argument that doesn't suit.
I'm going to stick with my Usain Bolt example...
Lets say Usain Bolt decides to only race the 100m once per year. He runs 9.52 seconds. New world record, fastest man in the world. For the rest of the year, at one met per month, he runs the 400m, obviously significantly slower than what he would run the 100m at.
John Smith, his rival, runs only the 100m, at a track meet every month. He runs somewhere between 9.8 and 10.2 for each race, call his average 10.
He only races Bolt once in the 100m, where he looses... because 9.52 is a lot faster than 9.8.
He then goes and prints up a bunch of T shirts claiming to be the fastest man alive. When a puzzled journalist who has covered Track and Field his entire career looks at him with a puzzled expression, he explains, "because for 11 out of 12 events, I ran faster." Journalist shakes his head and walks off without bothering to finish the interview
Needless to say, no ones buys his 'fastest man' T shirts
15 page thread, meet The Dynamite... and boom it goes.
Race Day in May will be the first race of the season for INDYCAR to actually race at higher speeds than NASCAR. It isn't my fault. It is INDYCAR's.
Well to quote Bill Clinton,
It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
"Turn right to go left" Doc Hudson
Hey, I already quoted two sources for the definition of "faster", and they both support my argument
"Less faster! - More Often!" Sounds like a beer commercial
Sometimes higher speeds just aren't "faster". Sometimes, a higher speed is "too slow", while a lower speed can be "too fast". Depends on the track.
How can "too fast" ever be slower than "too slow"?In that usage, faster or slower is comparative, more than it is an absolute measure.
I want to see speeds as close as possible to "too fast for the track". That, to me, and to most race fans, is "faster" - it's a quality of capability, of achievement.
Is that IndyCar, or NASCAR, on any day, any track?
Penelope? Care to respond? Which series comes closer to racing "too fast for the track"?
No, it doesn't. Unless you want to make excuses until May 27. (I already said you would.)
When "too fast" is 55mph and "too slow" is 56 mph.How can "too fast" ever be slower than "too slow"?Which is why you insist on avoiding direct speed comparisons.In that usage, faster or slower is comparative, more than it is an absolute measure.
Good for you. But that doesn't change the fact that it is still slower.I want to see speeds as close as possible to "too fast for the track". That, to me, and to most race fans, is "faster" - it's a quality of capability, of achievement.
An Indycar can outperform a Cup car, no question, but INDYCAR races are usually run at a slower pace, making them slower on Race Day. On which Race Day do you first expect INDYCAR to be faster than NASCAR this year?Is that IndyCar, or NASCAR, on any day, any track?
INDYCAR. Which series chooses to lap at higher speeds on Race Day most of the time?Penelope? Care to respond? Which series comes closer to racing "too fast for the track"?
No I haven't - I have in fact acknowledged them, posted them. I just don't think 70 mph in my Fit on I-74 is as interesting or exciting (or demonstrates the capability of being faster) as the same or lower mph in an IndyCar pulling 3 g's in a tight corner.
That capability is included in the dictionary definitions of "faster", which you of course can't acknowledge. Just as you can't acknowledge that "too fast" is faster than "too slow".
I've already acknowledged NASCAR has more race days, and that they run ovals far more often. They will probably average faster lap averages this year, by virtue of 2 non-ovals to 12. But that's average, not absolute. And even then, IndyCar's non-oval averages will exceed seven or 8 of NASCAR's ovals, and do it while achieving top speeds in some section far beyond what NASCAR can deliver. And they'll do it downtown, not in some remote, giant, built-for-it bowl.INDYCAR. Which series chooses to lap at higher speeds on Race Day most of the time?
And of course IndyCar has faster oval race speeds. I could have sworn this discussion was about faster, not more frequent
IndyCar: faster than NASCAR, at any speed
See? That's my definition of "faster". So we agreeWhich series comes closer to racing "too fast for the track"?
The baby runs!
Last edited by Turn13; 03-09-2012 at 06:55 AM.
Is this topic entitled "This year, despite it all, we do need to remind fans that we're more interesting or exciting"? Nope, it simply refers to speed. If INDYCAR is lapping at 103mph while NASCAR is doing 140mph it may be more exciting and interesting, but it isn't faster.
Yes, I've already acknowleged that point. Look at the exact definition: Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly. On Race Day, NASCAR epitomizes the first two actions - acting more quickly and moving more quickly while INDYCAR satisfies the third action - capable of acting. NASCAR does what INDYCAR doesn't - race faster. If INDYCAR can't be faster on Race Day it really doesn't matter if they are "capable" of anything else. Put up or shut up.That capability is included in the dictionary definitions of "faster", which you of course can't acknowledge.Your incessant yammering on this subject is incorrect. I've answered your silly question about "too fast/slow" several times. I'm not responsible for your inability to process the responses. Try rereading my responses.Just as you can't acknowledge that "too fast" is faster than "too slow".
Then you agree that on Race Day NASCAR will be faster. The rest of your responses just cloud the issue. Faster is faster.I've already acknowledged NASCAR has more race days, and that they run ovals far more often. They will probably average faster lap averages this year
On which Race Day in 2012 will INDYCAR actually turn faster lap speeds than NASCAR for the first time? Three months is a long time.
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 03-09-2012 at 08:21 AM.
I think IndyCar's more interesting and exciting because it IS faster.
IndyCar satisfies all three, everyday, including race day, because it is ALWAYS capable.Yes, I've already acknowleged that point. Look at the exact definition: Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly. On Race Day, NASCAR epitomizes the first two actions - acting more quickly and moving more quickly while INDYCAR satisfies the third action - capable of acting.
NO.The you agree that on Race Day NASCAR will be faster.
And yet you still refuse to answer the question:
On which Race Day in 2012 will INDYCAR actually turn faster lap speeds than NASCAR for the first time?
I wanna live in y'all's nursing home in 20 years.
Still got nothin', carry on.
An entertaining thread, to be sure, and your adversary has steadfastly chosen to avoid the real topic. Bravo.
Second only to the image marketing.
IndyCar is faster than NASCAR on every track they run - on any track they run.
"Faster" isn't indicated by just lap averages - especially between unequal courses. "Faster" means more rapid acceleration, more rapid deceleration, pulling more G's in the corners, and hitting faster trap speeds.
When will NASCAR begin to approach IndyCar's stats on any of those?
IndyCar already went 210 at Fontana. I haven't got the highest trap speeds for Infineon or Sebring yet, but I will.
Even though it should be up to you to demonstrate, because everyone else (but maybe Billy) knows I'm right
Meanwhile, I could gas up the ol' Honda Fit, drive to Baltimore down I-70, and easily average a faster speed than NASCAR does at Martinsville, even with a pitstop. I must be faster, according to Billy and Penelope. Maybe I should wear a helmet
"Faster" - To paraphrase Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride " You keep using that word - I don't think it means what you think it means"
Last edited by Turn13; 03-09-2012 at 08:59 PM.
The question remains unanswered: On which Race Day in 2012 will INDYCAR actually turn faster lap speeds than NASCAR for the first time?
At the Indy 500, I believe, but I didn't put much thought into it because I don't believe it's relevant to the discussion.
I don't think average lap speeds on disparate tracks indicate who's faster. Average lap speeds on the same track would
That's what "faster" means, when we compare all the components and attributes of each series, and not just the tracks.
On what day, race day or not, will Cup cars be capable of moving more swiftly than an IndyCar?
When will Cup cars lap at Indy or Sonoma or Watkins Glen or Texas faster than IndyCars?
The lap averages may be lower on non-ovals, but they will still be going faster - getting more up to higher speeds in shorter distances, attaining higher top trap speeds, decelerating more rapidly, and cornering with more G's and speed retained than the NASCAR series does at any time.
When was the last time you heard cup fans clamoring for more speed? Tom Sneva's Texaco Star is still faster than Nascar.
Marketing Indy as "faster than Nascar" is like marketing food as "without maggots". It isn't an accomplishment, it is an expectation. The bar is set too low and the fans are rewarding the series by not watching even though it is "faster"*
*than Nascar.
As has been explained several times, it's not Cup fans we're looking to inform. It's the other 95% of the public.
Good point about the Sneva comparison. Just thought of something, though, and you may have the answer: What is the highest speed NASCAR achieves on any track any more? Not necessarily a lap average, but even momentarily at the end of a straight?
Would the 210 mentioned in the opening link be it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks