IndyCar hasn't raced slower than Cup in years. Especially not this year... so farOriginally Posted by PenelopePitstop
IndyCar hasn't raced slower than Cup in years. Especially not this year... so far
"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
NASCAR has been faster in MPH over and over, even starting with Daytona.IndyCar hasn't raced slower than Cup in years. Especially not this year... so far
Then when NASCAR races head to head with IC on the same weekend, who was going faster? NASCAR.
Yeah, well, I don't think so
I've been paying close attention, and IndyCar has always been faster. Cup's always slower.
IndyCar has accelerated faster,
decelerated faster,
cornered faster,
had the highest top speeds,
averaged 30 to 50 mph faster on the same tracks,
holds the track records on all the tracks it races on,
(including all of those that both race on),
and was even faster on a motorcycle course than Cup was on an oval track.
Just wait 'til they do run races on the same tracks
I also googled, and all the random links from the google searches all indicated that most people agree IndyCar is faster.
Maybe you've got a broken calculator
I'll just give you one example. This past weekend, who had a higher average speed and who had a higher peak MPH between NASCAR and IC? You know, the "general fan" is comparing with this "we're faster" campaign.Yeah, well, I don't think so
And in the, "were faster" campaign, NHRA, NASCAR and F1 produced a higher mph this weekend.
But go on with your campaign.
I don't think it's valid to compare MPH from different tracks. Most people don't, too. Just as you noted with the trap speeds and the lap averages.
It's probably better to compare the speed run with the all-time record for that track. In that case, Cup ran at 74%, and IndyCar ran at about 98%.
Sounds like IndyCar is faster, to me, unless you think that the series that:
accelerates faster,
decelerates faster,
corners faster,
is faster head-to-head,
is faster absolutely (has the highest top speeds),
averages 30 to 50 mph faster on the same tracks,
holds the track records on all the tracks it races on,
(including all of those that both race on),
is faster on ovals,
is faster on non-ovals,
and is faster on some non-ovals than NASCAR is on some ovals,
is the slower series.
But that wouldn't really make sense, would it?
I have said several times that F1 is faster - but F1 doesn't run on ovals.
NHRA doesn't run on closed courses.
NASCAR is probably sixth or seventh fastest, worldwide... but Indycar is the fastest oval racing series in the world.
And how many races does IC race on ovals? How many races does IC run on streets and RC's compared to F1? Whos faster.
And IC doesn't race in a straight line. And NHRA is still faster.NHRA doesn't run on closed courses.
IC is not an oval series, get over it.NASCAR is probably sixth or seventh fastest, worldwide... but Indycar is the fastest oval racing series in the world.
"probable" or fact when saying sixth or seventh.
Watch your reply and words carefully.
And your right, F1 doesn't run on ovals. But, less you forget, a certain F1 car and a certain group of IRL cars ran together at a track in Motegi. Who was faster? F1.
I don't want to post the video to make your rebuttal look bad, but dont forget, if I do, a certain F1 car was dialed way down and still put the hurt on the IRL cars on an oval.
And a certain OW car holds the track record at Laguna, which was initially broken by a F1 car.....
Throw a DW12 at Laguna, it would be seconds off. Not only to the F1 sled, but the OW car that holds the record.
Fastest how?
IC cant in anyway, today, claim they are "faster". It would be an epic failure to try that angle, and you know it.
What if someone like me knew people in the press and AP, showed them this thread, especially the last few pages.
They would annihilate IC for making such a claim. If IC was tearing up ovals and big speed, breaking records, ripping ovals apart, it would be a different story. Fact is, IC only runs three ovals and are slower then the old IRL sleds.
Even with turbos, they are gutless. "I cant even spin the tires in second gear"? Thats an IC drivers words.
Again, F1 is the fastest - no doubt Americans need reminded of that, too
But what this thread was about is reminding people that IndyCar is faster than NASCAR, every minute of every day
Interesting that in your epic rant to the AP you can't contradict any of this:
IndyCar, compared to NASCAR:
accelerates faster,
decelerates faster,
corners faster,
is faster head-to-head,
is faster absolutely (has the highest top speeds),
averages 30 to 50 mph faster on the same tracks,
holds the track records on all the tracks it races on,
(including all of those that both race on),
is faster on ovals,
is faster on non-ovals,
and is faster on some non-ovals than NASCAR is on some ovals.
Sounds like they're faster
Most people agree:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0105750AA7mXUU
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...thread=3409821
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2001056
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_is_f..._car_or_nascar
The only people still holding out are a few that seem to have a personal problem with me or this forumSorry, but you're not going to hurt my feelings
And even with all of these advantages for INDYCAR, NASCAR is faster on most race days.
Why is INDYCAR racing around at 105mph while NASCAR is racing at 180mph??
Nor do I.
Is that a made-up quote, or just one out of context again?
IndyCar is always faster than Cup. Even when they're sleeping
Because they're on a different course - same reason NASCAR went 67 mph or whatever at Martinsville when IndyCar was doing 105 or whatever at Barber.
Why is NASCAR doing 180 on a track where IndyCar goes 220?
Why doesn't NASCAR ever run faster on the same course?
Answer: they're slower
Full quote of my words, direct quote of your response with the ensuing dispute left out. (post #125)
More dispute to follow, I'm certain.
Again (for the 18th time) I agree.Why doesn't NASCAR ever run faster on the same course?
Answer: they're slower
Why doesn't INDYCAR race as fast as NASCAR on Race Day? It doesn't matter why, it's simply a fact that they seldom do.
Yes, they do. They always do.
So now you are disputing your own answers.
You took it out of context. Context matters
Not even context can save your assertion that 55>56, though.
If you actually took the time to read your response in post #125, you'd see that it was not taken out of context; it was the response you gave to the question:
Your response was "No", then you gave your reasons for not disputing my claim. Now you dispute your own answer.
At least try to not argue with yourself.
I'm not. I've always included the context. And racing faster is different than simply being faster. Again, context.
You're impressed by "racing" 185 on a 215 track. Me, not so much.
And IndyCar is faster on those faster tracks, too
For the umpteenth time, I've not disputed that 56>55. I just said 56 on a straight road isn't fast racing, while 55 on a tight hairpin is. You are arguing the opposite, and that's just stupid.
You're not stupid, you just like being antagonistic, apparently.
So they race faster in slower cars. Contex being what you make it, NASCAR races faster on Race Day.
I simply report what happened, not my feelings on the matter. NASCAR raced at 185mph last weekend while INDYCAR raced at 105mph. Not concerned about being impressed or not, just reporting that NASCAR raced at higher speeds all race long than INDYCAR attained all weekend.You're impressed by "racing" 185 on a 215 track.
A point I never disputed..And IndyCar is faster on those faster tracks, too
Not really. Go back and read your comments that you are now disputing.For the umpteenth time, I've not disputed that 56>55. I just said 56 on a straight road isn't fast racing, while 55 on a tight hairpin is.No, I've always maintained that faster is faster no matter what the context you want to assign. More difficult, yes. Faster, no.You are arguing the opposite, and that's just stupid.
I'm getting you to argue against your own words. That's not antagonistic. And it certainly isn't stupid on my part.You're not stupid, you just like being antagonistic, apparently.
Go way back and read where I said that I much prefer watching INDYCAR. You have mistaken my argument as a defense of NASCAR when it isn't. INDYCAR needs to be the faster series much more often than they currently are, especially this year where they have so many s-l-o-w city street races. Get 'em on tracks where they can race like... Indycars.
No, they never race faster. They may go faster, but they're doing it slowly by IndyCar standards
Context means that going 100 can be racing faster than going 150.
NASCAR raced at 75% of capacity (185 of 230). IndyCar raced at 98% (102 of 105).
IndyCar raced faster.
I'm getting you to argue against your own words.No, they never race faster. They may go faster, but they're doing it slowly by IndyCar standards
Context means that going 100 can be racing faster than going 150.
NASCAR raced at 75% of capacity (185 of 230). IndyCar raced at 98% (102 of 105).
IndyCar raced faster.
NASCAR was faster at TMS than INDYCAR was at Long Beach. Do you dispute this?
Like Road Atlanta, and Road America
Q: The Stanley Cup was recently on tour through my town and I kissed it, is there any chance I mite catch listeria?
A: NO you are safe, the cup hasn't touched any Maple Leaf products in 40 years
PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
Cup cars look faster on those natural terrain road courses. Love that. Too bad Brain France does not get that.
As I said, being faster isn't necessarily racing faster. You have to consider the context. Have to.
NASCAR raced at 75% of capacity (185 of 230). IndyCar raced at 98% (102 of 105). If we consider mph alone, NASCAR of course has a higher lap average. Yes, it's the commonly used standard, but mph alone is a lousy standard for what it means to 'race faster'.
Because of course NASCAR doesn't race faster than IndyCar does at TMS - and they don't race faster than IndyCar does anywhere.
But your point is well made that people, however erroneously, may tend to just remember this weekend, not all the others.
And that's why we have to remind people.
NASCAR was slower at TMS than INDYCAR was. Do you dispute this?
IndyCar was also faster at Long Beach than NASCAR would be. Surely no informed person disputes that.
You didn't answer the question. Slower is slower no matter the context.
NASCAR raced at 185mph.NASCAR raced at 75% of capacity (185 of 230).INDYCAR raced at 102mph.IndyCar raced at 98% (102 of 105).Yep. FASTER.If we consider mph alone, NASCAR of course has a higher lap average.For good reason - it measures which is FASTER.Yes, it's the commonly used standardOh? Sounds like another excuse. Because it is another excuse.but mph alone is a lousy standard for what it means to 'race faster'.
No, they quite correctly remember all the other times that this exact situation is true - most Race Weekends, NASCAR is faster.But your point is well made that people, however erroneously, may tend to just remember this weekend, not all the others.
We?And that's why we have to remind people.
Never have. Now answer my question: NASCAR was faster at TMS than INDYCAR was at Long Beach. Do you dispute this?NASCAR was slower at TMS than INDYCAR was. Do you dispute this?
Until NASCAR runs at LB your statement is only speculation. Very likely true, but still it is just speculation. I prefer to deal with facts, not speculation.IndyCar was also faster at Long Beach than NASCAR would be. Surely no informed person disputes that.
It's "speculation" that an IndyCar is faster than a Cup car? Really?
Try reading my words again. Try to comprehend what I said. Try hard.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks