I read that the Cup cars only topped out at 202mph at Fontana, is that accurate?
I read that the Cup cars only topped out at 202mph at Fontana, is that accurate?
Your argument says my Honda Fit is faster, which is absurd.Originally Posted by PenelopePitstop
And I DID go faster today. NASCAR could have, but chose not to.
"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
I don't know. My personal life took precedence to automobile racing this weekend.
But if what you say is true, then they topped out at about 60mph faster than Indycars did at St. Petersburg this weekend.
No, my argument says that your Fit was faster today than INDYCAR, which is true.
Absolutely correct. Just like INDYCAR could have raced at faster speeds than NASCAR this weekend, but chose not to.And I DID go faster today
Repeat that statement for the next three INDYCAR races.
They just decide not to be faster most of the year.
The Indy Car race looked like it was in slow motion yesterday when compared to the Cup race at Fontana. And the Cup race was incredibly boring, on one of the worst tracks in the sport for its cars.
Yes, when they are on a oval the Indy Cars are faster then stock cars. But since they have decided to be a street racing series, they have CHOSEN for a slower product the vast majority of the season.
Another way of putting this is Usain Bolt is faster then Peyton Manning. But when Bolt decides to power-walk most of the time and Manning (while slower) decides to run at full speed most of the time, the slower guy is actually faster on many more days then the faster guy is.
Prime Minister of Gackland
And how many mph slower than the IndyCars do at Fontana?
Why don't you want to address yesterday's results? INDYCAR at St. Petersburg was much, much slower than Cup at Fontana, don't you agree?
The laws of physics at work.
And I am discussing yesterday. Only one series races at the St. Pete course. And the Cup cars at Fontana were how many mph slower than the IndyCars at Fontana?
Were the Indycars at Fontana yesterday? Nope, they chose to be on the City Streets of St. Petersburg, topping out at near 160mph, averaging less than 105mph each lap. Far, far slower than the speeds NASCAR raced at yesterday, don't you agree?
Because IndyCar and NASCAR raced on completely different race courses.So INDYCAR was slower yesterday because...
Yes IndyCar at St Petersburg was slower than Cup at Fontana. Just as NASCAR was slower last week at Bristol than NASCAR this week at Fontana.Why don't you want to address yesterday's results? INDYCAR at St. Petersburg was much, much slower than Cup at Fontana, don't you agree?.
OH WOW, using PP math, I've just hit upon a huge revelation!
I have just proved NASCAR is slower than NASCAR!
(can we make 23 this week?)
new sig pending
As they do every Race Day.
Correct.Yes IndyCar at St Petersburg was slower than Cup at Fontana.But not on the same race weekend. Try to keep up. I know it's difficult for the Cheerleaders.Just as NASCAR was slower last week at Bristol than NASCAR this week at Fontana.
No, you once again have proven that you don't understand. No surprise.OH WOW, using PP math, I've just hit upon a huge revelation!
Au contraire. I understand quite well, thank you. I'm having quite a bit of fun extrapolating an apples to oranges comparison, making a little fruit salad in the process.No, you once again have proven that you don't understand. No surprise.
Here's an example: Per the logic/math in your 'who races faster' comparison, taken directly from the above post:
A) You compare IndyCar and NASCAR races on same day at different race tracks, but
B) Will not compare IndyCar and NASCAR at the same race track on different days
oh and (from previous posts)
C) if NASCAR races, but IndyCar doesn't race, NASCAR races faster.
The only way IndyCar can ensure they 'race faster' than NASCAR in your scenario is if IndyCar runs on a large oval on the same day NASCAR runs on a small oval (or perhaps IndyCar/large oval, NASCAR/roadcourse). Running on similar ovals won't ensure they 'race faster' as one or two lengthy caution periods could drop the average race speed below that of NASCAR if NASCAR had only a few short caution periods.
Correct me if I "don't understand" but NASCAR/Charlotte and IndyCar/Indy Memorial Day weekend will be a valid comparison since it's on the "same race weekend", right? BUT, if IndyCar 'races faster' later this year at Fontana, IndyCar/Fontana to NASCAR/Fontana is not a valid comparison; Ditto Indianapolis Motor Speedway and Texas Motor Speedway...since IndyCar and NASCAR don't race there "on the same race weekend".
If comparing NASCAR/Fontana to IndyCar/St Pete is valid, NASCAR/Fontana to NASCAR/Bristol are just as valid a comparison. NASCAR races slower than NASCAR.
Hey, if one golfer holes out in 3 strokes on a par 3 hole, he's a better golfer than the one that holes out in 4 strokes on a par 5 hole, right? He took less strokes to get the ball in the hole (maybe he even 'plays faster' too).
23 anyone?
This "faster" argument and claim could work in public viewership (compared the NASCAR), with more ovals, there are not. Indy is the benchmark in this speed claim.
Since T-13 brought up acceleration as a new term of being 'faster' (which would be quicker, not faster, big difference), lets see what the NHRA does in a 1/4 mile (dont argue length reduced) to the finish line at Indy compared.
Or lets see IndyCar turn its fastest lap at the IMS road course, they are not fastest. And they would be embarrassed to make a claim, of being "fastest" compared to F1 running there.
EVER wonder why, you have never seen an IndyCar run the road course and publish any times?
We all know why.
I've already acknowledged NHRA and F1 for being faster at what they do. No problemBut they don't do it on ovals. "Faster than NASCAR" was the claim in the OP. Fastest on ovals, though, is also true.
Correct.
Incorrect - I've agreed many times that Indycars will post faster times in a direct competition.B) Will not compare IndyCar and NASCAR at the same race track on different days
Partial credit for this one - if NASCAR races but Indycar doesn't, then of course the public gets to see racing, but only one kind and that will be NASCAR.oh and (from previous posts)
C) if NASCAR races, but IndyCar doesn't race, NASCAR races faster.
So to grade your level of understanding you get a 50/100 which is a failing grade.
You got it right once - This past weekend NASCAR raced faster than Indycar. That statement will not change for another two months, whether INDYCAR is racing or not. Since you understand that fact you are doing well.
So what you are suggesting is that INDYCAR should run a different schedule if they want to be recognized as the faster of the two? Good idea - exactly the same as mine FWIW.The only way IndyCar can ensure they 'race faster' than NASCAR in your scenario is if IndyCar runs on a large oval on the same day NASCAR runs on a small oval (or perhaps IndyCar/large oval, NASCAR/roadcourse). Running on similar ovals won't ensure they 'race faster' as one or two lengthy caution periods could drop the average race speed below that of NASCAR if NASCAR had only a few short caution periods.
Here's the thing: If INDYCAR didn't run so freaking many of its races on city street circuits where passing is limited and speeds are greatly reduced then the viewing public wouldn't be so confused as to which series is the faster. But when they turn on the TV and see Indycars running at 103mph while the Cup cars are lapping at 180mph, they instinctively turn away from the slower competition.Correct me if I "don't understand" but NASCAR/Charlotte and IndyCar/Indy Memorial Day weekend will be a valid comparison since it's on the "same race weekend", right? BUT, if IndyCar 'races faster' later this year at Fontana, IndyCar/Fontana to NASCAR/Fontana is not a valid comparison; Ditto Indianapolis Motor Speedway and Texas Motor Speedway...since IndyCar and NASCAR don't race there "on the same race weekend".
Whatever. You already were given a failing grade.If comparing NASCAR/Fontana to IndyCar/St Pete is valid, NASCAR/Fontana to NASCAR/Bristol are just as valid a comparison. NASCAR races slower than NASCAR.
Not necessarily, but if he plays a par 3 course he will most likely card a lower score.Hey, if one golfer holes out in 3 strokes on a par 3 hole, he's a better golfer than the one that holes out in 4 strokes on a par 5 hole, right? He took less strokes to get the ball in the hole (maybe he even 'plays faster' too).
Good analogy.
NASCAR, then, is set up as a series of par 3's.
IndyCar runs more par 7's.
Interesting.
You've made a good point
Perhaps what would matter most is the percentage of par - or, in the case of speed, the percentage of potential speed achieved.
Last edited by Turn13; 03-27-2012 at 07:51 AM.
That is what the viewers do EVERY weekend. Even Jakester understands this when he stated that NASCAR at Fontana was faster than Indycar at St. Petersburg. That's what everybody watching saw and understood. And that's what they will continue to see for the next two months. How are you going to tell them different?You've made a good point
As for the golfing - If you men want to improve your mental game, try teeing off from the ladies' tees every so often. You will usually shave a couple of strokes from your score and your mind will "remember" that you parred a certain hole before, making it less of a mental block to par it again, even from the men's tees. Good luck.
So when they turn on the TV and see Cup cars lapping 60 mph slower than Fontana (Bristol, Martinsville), they will instinctively turn away from the slower competition? Or do you believe the viewing public's memory is so short they won't remember Daytona or Fontana?But when they turn on the TV and see Indycars running at 103mph while the Cup cars are lapping at 180mph, they instinctively turn away from the slower competition.
Please...use the complete statement....just as NASCAR was slower at Bristol than at Fontana.That is what the viewers do EVERY weekend. Even Jakester understands this when he stated that NASCAR at Fontana was faster than Indycar at St. Petersburg.
Apples/oranges...2.0 mile oval/1.8 mile road (street) course. Who 'races faster' is determined by the race track, not the race cars.
Isn't that the point?I've agreed many times that Indycars will post faster times in a direct competition.
Who 'races faster'? Geoffrey Mutai or Usain Bolt?
No, the IndyCars were at St. Pete.
If they were at Fontana they would have been lapping the Cup field repeatedly because they are faster.
Look at the title of this thread - it says we need to remind folks. This is the age of instant gratification. To the newbie, faster is determined by what they are seeing in this particular moment.
Please use the same principle - we are comparing same weekend racing. Those races were held on different weekends, therefore your comparison is invalid. Try harder.Please...use the complete statement....just as NASCAR was slower at Bristol than at Fontana.
Ding, ding, ding! Thanks for finally getting the point. Indycar kills its allure of holding a natural speed advantage over NASCAR by running so darn many city street races. That is the reason they are more often the slower series, the lesser watched series. But the reason is unimportant to the viewer, just the results. Slower is slower to them.Apples/oranges...2.0 mile oval/1.8 mile road (street) course. Who 'races faster' is determined by the race track, not the race cars.
No, the point is an apples vs apples comparison: the NASCAR product (races) vs Indycar product (races). NASCAR's product is faster most weekends.Isn't that the point?
Don't you find it curious that INDYCAR's fastest race gets the biggest audience? Go figure.
lapping at 103mph.
But they weren't, were they? Nope, they were at St. Petersburg lapping at 103mph.If they were at Fontana they would have been lapping the Cup field repeatedly because they are faster.
Remind your boss that you could have done a better job if she had given you an easier assignment. See how much that statement impresses her.
Hmm, just my opinion, but I'd opine averaging 175 mph on a 2 mile oval is 'easier' than averaging 10 3mph on a 1.8 mile road course.Remind your boss that you could have done a better job if she had given you an easier assignment. See how much that statement impresses her.
Don't have to try hard at all. Those races were held on completely different race tracks, therefore your comparison is invalid.Those races were held on different weekends, therefore your comparison is invalid. Try harder.
I find it curious that you think that Fontana (Auto Club Speedway) gets the biggest audience.Don't you find it curious that INDYCAR's fastest race gets the biggest audience?
So an NHRA product (races) to NASCAR product (races) is apples to apples also, right?No, the point is an apples vs apples comparison: the NASCAR product (races) vs Indycar product (races). NASCAR's product is faster most weekends.
Will be interesting to see how your comparison works out next weekend.
89.260 mph
74.195 mph
Nobody would argue that point, however 175mph is still faster than 103mph no matter the degree of difficulty.
Race fans tuning in to the NASCAR product on Sunday saw much faster racing than those who tuned in on the INDYCAR product that same day. Product vs product - very valid.Don't have to try hard at all. Those races were held on completely different race tracks, therefore your comparison is invalid.
I never said anything about that, did I? Yet you claim to know what I'm thinking?I find it curious that you think that Fontana (Auto Club Speedway) gets the biggest audience.
That depends. And it is not the topic of this thread, is it?So an NHRA product (races) to NASCAR product (races) is apples to apples also, right?
Magic numbers? I hadn't been paying attention to the schedule. It looks like INDYCAR will be the faster series this weekend. Maybe they'll only be slower for 9/17 of their season.Will be interesting to see how your comparison works out next weekend.
89.260 mph
74.195 mph
I don't think they do. I think the fans of golf can understand that a 67 on a all-par 3 course is less of an accomplishment than a 67 on a all-par 4 course. In both cases, though, it's the amount under par that's impressive - something that indicates a common denominator of difficulty. It's how much of the potential best you can achieve that's significant - not the number of strokes on un-equal courses.
You realize that you are sort of arguing that NASCAR allegorically uses women's tees?
There are many variables about the product. But the faster series between the two - the one that achieves more of the potential speed of every track - is IndyCar.
No, because neither ratings nor attendance have a direct correlation to speed, in either series. I just like IndyCar because it's faster
So not only is NASCAR shooting from the women's tees, but now you admit their assignment is easier
Me, I appreciate the fascination of what's difficult - even if it takes some 'splainin' for the new folks. They can handle it. Just like they adapted to the winner in golf getting the lower score
What we need is a common denominator term for what is truly impressive about the relative speeds each series races at. Perhaps when you do your calculations, you can note what the percentage of the all-time track record is for each of the race speeds you compile for us each week.
That would make all kinds of sense
Last edited by Turn13; 03-27-2012 at 09:20 PM.
You type in so many words but you find it impossible to admit that last weekend NASCAR raced at speeds more than 75mph faster than INDYCAR.
I like your long, long lists of excuses, though. You apologize for the slower racing quite well and quite often. And I'll bet you're not done with the excuses.
I have always acknowledged that. But that's not what "faster" means, in this case, since you are comparing different tracks.
Context matters - just like a 67 on a par 3 golf course isn't "better" than a 68 on a par 4 golf course.
Your big excuse is that the track conditions don't matter. The rest of the world disagrees.I like your long, long lists of excuses, though. You apologize for the slower racing quite well and quite often. And I'll bet you're not done with the excuses.
Why would the OP start a thread that "we're faster" in 2012 is beyond me. You could get away with such a campaign, maybe, when the the series had all ovals, especially when comparing speed on ovals that NASCAR runs at. Now in 2012 the series has 3 ovals, and your going to try and "remind" the general public that IC is faster? Good luck with that.
I'm sure IndyCar will be faster, as evidenced by the top speeds set this year, by the fact that their ovals average higher than NASCAR's ovals, and their non-ovals average faster than NASCAR's non-ovals. Plus, how many times will the top trap speed from an IndyCar race be faster than NASCAR's top trap speed? IndyCar accelerates faster, decelerates faster, and corners faster at higher G's than NASCAR. They also achieve more of the top speed potential at every track than NASCAR does.
To me, that means they're faster. Racing slower than Indycar would be more often is not being faster. If it is, then my Honda Fit is kicking NASCAR's butt - we made the I-74 run three times on Saturday, and once each on Monday and Tuesday
What I find funny, and down right odd, is that T-13's statements, he has spent 20+ pages saying "faster" and agreeing that IC is. So go ahead and agree with the OP.
NOW T-13, take all 20+ pages of your responses and rebuttals that the media would ask, and you explain, in 30 seconds on TV how your faster with all the excuses attached to it within these 20+ pages.
Or better yet, you know people, I know people, why don't you get ahold of the AP and explain to them, how IC is faster. The media would ask the same questions, and point to facts as in here in this thread, are you going to keep bending over backwards trying to prove your case with the AP?
You would have to, because your claim is so outlandish.
So T-13, go to the AP, take all the info in this thread and present it to the people that matter the most.
Lets see what your results yield, in claiming, "being faster". And lets see how fast the AP latches on to this false fact, without any logical questions, while many outlets share this store from the AP.
Just do it T-13. I would love to see you give it a try. And when the AP runs with this claim, and you read IC is so much faster then NASCAR, let us all know.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks