And I find the difference of 175.993 mph more predictable, more probable and much, much faster.Originally Posted by Turn13
And I find the difference of 175.993 mph more predictable, more probable and much, much faster.
In the context of this topic, NASCAR will be 175.993mph faster at Kansas this year than INDYCAR. How's that for a reminder?
Enjoy it. You deserve it
I guess I'll be 72 mph faster than NASCAR on I-74 here shortly too, but I try not to get a big head about it.
By that standard, I'll be 10 mph faster than NASCAR on my bike riding the B&O Trail, too
"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
Being idle on Race Day while a rival series is racing is a sure way to be ignored by the fans. It is also a guarantee that you will not be the faster series that weekend.I guess I'll be 72 mph faster than NASCAR on I-74 here shortly too, but I try not to get a big head about it.
By that standard, I'll be 10 mph faster than NASCAR on my bike riding the B&O Trail, too
NASCAR showed the fans some 170mph racing this weekend. INDYCAR showed them nothing.
As for your Fit, if 72mph is 97.3% of all the possible speed attainable, for that condition, that highway, that car, then I applaud your effort. But, seriously, I think you'd need to be going at least 90mph in your Fit to be 'faster' than NASCAR this weekend using your latest definition of faster. You can leave it shut off in your driveway if you want to equal INDYCAR's performance this weekend.
NASCAR ran at 81% of IndyCar's posted track record. They could do that 100 times and it wouldn't go to 101% (which is what faster would actually look like).
Inconsistent with your latest definition of 'faster'.
"160 mph is "faster" than 180 mph when the conditions specify that 160 is a greater percentage of the record, a greater percentage of all the possible speed attainable, for that condition, that track, that car."
NASCAR qualified at 97.3% of the greatest possible speed attainable for that track, that car this weekend. Your definition, NASCAR's accomplishment.
Besides, NASCAR was faster than INDYCAR all weekend just by hitting the pit lane speed limit.
NASCAR has held 8 races so far this season. INDYCAR was faster than NASCAR on only one of those eight Race Weekends.
By that standard, my morning commute has been faster than NASCAR 57 times this year.
But in reality, IndyCar is always faster than Cup
And my definition has always been the same, and the same as the one in the dictionary - what has varied is your tortured interpretations
NASCAR did pretty well, compared to NASCAR's best - not faster, but close. Compared to IndyCar's record, however, they were dramatically slower.
Thanks for the reminder
Another track that IndyCars are faster on than Cup cars?
Batting a thousand...
Since this topic concerns this year, NASCAR is once again faster due to the fact that INDYCAR has abandoned this track in order to race on city street circuits.
This year at Kansas:
NASCAR 175.993mph
INDYCAR no show
By that standard your morning commute has been faster than INDYCAR 64 times this year.
If you only could deal with reality you wouldn't need to jabber how 160mph is 'faster' than 180mph.But in reality, IndyCar is always faster than Cup
Your definition changes daily, then you disagree with yourself.And my definition has always been the same, and the same as the one in the dictionary - what has varied is your tortured interpretations
How close will INDYCAR come to the record at that track this year? Oh yeah, they will attain precisely ZERO% of the track record. Chalk up yet another track at which NASCAR is faster this year. After all, we need to limit this discussion to the context of the topic.NASCAR did pretty well, compared to NASCAR's best - not faster, but close. Compared to IndyCar's record, however, they were dramatically slower.
It has been my pleasure, as always.Thanks for the reminder
And which weekends did they race on the same track?
None of them, but when the fans looked at the weekend results they found that NASCAR was most often racing at faster speeds.
Despite it all, NASCAR is most often faster, even when INDYCAR holds a race. They'll be faster this coming weekend, too.
No excuses.
By Penelope's trivial formula:
NASCAR 'RACES FASTER' BY a minimum score of 20-16 regardless of IndyCar and NASCAR actual race speeds.
never would've guessed 38.....
new sig pending
What 'formula' would you prefer?
If you use what you consider to be 'my formula' but eliminate the weekends that INDYCAR doesn't race, NASCAR still prevails.
What formula do you want to use on Race Day to determine which series is giving the fans the faster product? Turn13's straightforward formula that says '160 is 'faster' than 180?'
How about race performance on the same tracks, like has been said all along?What 'formula' would you prefer?
I.E. Compare NASCAR to IndyCars at Indy Motor Speedway (apples to apples). Oh, I know, that's too complex for the simple minded masses.
What 'formula' I prefer is not the point of my post....simply that your formula has a predetermined answer that does not consider speed. At least you're coming closer to admitting that.
Yes, because the majority of the inputs to your formula compares apples to oranges (ovals to road/street courses).If you use what you consider to be 'my formula' but eliminate the weekends that INDYCAR doesn't race, NASCAR still prevails.
Ah, but the two series are giving the fans diferent products (the product is not simply "a race").which series is giving the fans the faster product
When they race on the same tracks on the same Race Day that would be a fair comparison. When will they do that?
No, Turn13 has created a very straightforward way of comparing that. Of course his formula sometimes causes 160mph to be 'faster' than 180mph, and most likely will do just that at IMS this year.I.E. Compare NASCAR to IndyCars at Indy Motor Speedway (apples to apples). Oh, I know, that's too complex for the simple minded masses.
Like I said, eliminate the 20 or so times that INDYCAR can't find a racetrack to be on and that comparison still has NASCAR performing faster on Race Day.What 'formula' I prefer is not the point of my post....simply that your formula has a predetermined answer that does not consider speed.I may be wrong sometimes, but I never lie.At least you're coming closer to admitting that.
Not really - my comparison pits Race Day results against Race Day results. It isn't my fault that INDYCAR keeps showing up with the wrong fruit.Yes, because the majority of the inputs to your formula compares apples to oranges (ovals to road/street courses).
The product of each series is, indeed, "a race" on Race Day. Some are just conducted at slower speeds than others.Ah, but the two series are giving the fans diferent products (the product is not simply "a race").
None of them?
Got it.
Don't insult my or your intelligence. If you consider that the only "fair comparison" (as you refuse to consider racing on the same track on different days), it would appear you've just admitted your formula is unfair.When they race on the same tracks on the same Race Day that would be a fair comparison. When will they do that?
You did not ask me about Turn 13's method. You asked what formula I prefer.No, Turn13 has created a very straightforward way of comparing that. Of course his formula sometimes causes 160mph to be 'faster' than 180mph, and most likely will do just that at IMS this year.
Yet you continue to insist on REFUSING to do that:Like I said, eliminate the 20 or so times that INDYCAR can't find a racetrack to be on and that comparison still has NASCAR performing faster on Race Day.
Further reinforcing your trivial formula with predetermined results: NASCAR 'RACES FASTER' BY a minimum score of 20-16 regardless of IndyCar and NASCAR actual race speeds.Not really - my comparison pits Race Day results against Race Day results.
And I've addressed the other part also, medium/large oval racetrack average speeds are naturally higher than road/street course average speeds. Not exactly an earthsaking revelation. BTW, in the one short oval/road course comparison this year, NASCAR 'lost', didn't they?
Then a Smart and a Lincoln Navigator must be the same product (both being "a car"). So no complaints when the taxi service shows up with a Smart to pick up you and your 4 person party at the airport,eh?The product of each series is, indeed, "a race" on Race Day.
Just to be clear: I have only recommended one method or standard for determining which is the fastest series, and it is basically the same as determining which is the faster car: head-to-head comparisons.
Understanding that that only presents a few actual comparisons per year, I also suggested the idea of using the current results of each series as compared to the all-time record for those tracks - that way, we get one number, the percentage of the all-time record, for each track to compare head-to-head, apples to apples. But that's still just another measurement of the same thing, without the meaningless, apples -to-oranges ridicularity of PP's "method", which makes my Honda Fit a champ
All the rest of the confusion has been generated on PP's part, often from my trying to relate different ways for her to understand the concept of faster racing. It's up to each member to decide if her confusion and resulting repeated misrepresentations of what I've said, including dropping context, etc., has been disingenuous or not.
But again, just to be clear, I have been using several different ways of describing the same thing: that the series that has the fastest cars, that sets the highest speeds, that accelerates, decelerates, and corners the fastest, and that performs fastest head-to-head, is the faster series.
Everything I have said in that regard has been true, and PP has not tried to refute it. She has even substantiated it, when she couldn't waste everyone's time with verbal subterfuge, distortion and obfuscation.
I doubt very many fans, casual or otherwise, would be fooled. Almost none of the fans here are. The links from the google searches already support that.
PP is going to keep this up because of some sort of dogmatic approach that she thinks will convince lifelong IndyCar fans to accept some kind of cartoonish, imitation-NASCAR version of the concepts and qualities of speed and motorsports she us attempting to foist here.
She can't really think she's being effective, can she? Is she serious??
Who knows. It's all in fun, at least for me
Take care, racefans, and I'll see you at the tracks where the fast cars go.
double post
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 04-23-2012 at 04:55 PM.
You believe with all your heart that 160mph is faster than 180mph because of the configuration of the track. Since you believe that to be true, I seriously question ANY recommendation you make that determines faster from slower.
No, you proposed something entirely different:Understanding that that only presents a few actual comparisons per year, I also suggested the idea of using the current results of each series as compared to the all-time record for those tracks - that way, we get one number, the percentage of the all-time record, for each track to compare head-to-head, apples to apples.Now you say you don't believe your own proposal.
I present your words without distortion. Clarify what your words mean.All the rest of the confusion has been generated on PP's partYou said that there are certain conditions exist that make 160mph faster than 180mph, then created a 'context' that attempts to validate that claim. I'm guessing that most members are having a hard time envisioning a car racing along at 180mph actually being slower than a car doing 160mph.It's up to each member to decide if her confusion and resulting repeated misrepresentations of what I've said, including dropping context, etc., has been disingenuous or not.
When INDYCAR was lapping Long Beach at 103mph and NASCAR was lapping Texas Motor Speedway at 180+mph you said that INDYCAR was faster. Another of your "context" sleight-of-hand statements. 180mph is faster than 102mph no matter the context.But again, just to be clear, I have been using several different ways of describing the same thing: that the series that has the fastest cars, that sets the highest speeds, that accelerates, decelerates, and corners the fastest, and that performs fastest head-to-head, is the faster series.
False, disingenuous statement. I have never agreed that INDYCAR is the faster series when they perform at slower speeds than NASCAR.Everything I have said in that regard has been true, and PP has not tried to refute it. She has even substantiated it, when she couldn't waste everyone's time with verbal subterfuge, distortion and obfuscation.
Just to be clear... all of those claims came from the same post by you and they are quite contradictory. Again, just to be clear, you have used just one/two/several methods. Not that you are a disingenuous person.But again, just to be clear, I have been using several different ways of describing the same thing
Which series was faster the weekend of 4/15-16? (NASCAR 180mph, INDYCAR 102mph.)I doubt very many fans, casual or otherwise, would be fooled. Almost none of the fans here are. The links from the google searches already support that.
You are the one who vowed to keep this thread alive, not me.PP is going to keep this up because of some sort of dogmatic approach that she thinks will convince lifelong IndyCar fans to accept some kind of cartoonish, imitation-NASCAR version of the concepts and qualities of speed and motorsports she us attempting to foist here.
You've said some pretty unbelievable things these past few weeks that you would never have said outside of this thread. "160mph is 'faster' than 180mph..."She can't really think she's being effective, can she? Is she serious??
Another sign of your disingenuousness.Who knows. It's all in fun, at least for me
OK, I'll see you in Richmond on Sunday.Take care, racefans, and I'll see you at the tracks where the fast cars go.
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 04-23-2012 at 06:35 PM.
No, your intelligence is not in question, nor is mine. I have stated more than 20 times in this thread that Indycars are faster in a head-to-head comparison. (So since you are having trouble comprehending this fact, maybe I do question your intelligence a bit.) Problem is, practically every weekend of the season NASCAR holds a race. INDYCAR holds one about every other week. When NASCAR races when INDYCAR is idle they are, by default, the faster series that weekend. Certainly you are not going to say that INDYCAR is faster on those weekends? On the weekends that both series compete, more often the series that races at faster speeds is NASCAR. Take the weekend when INDYCAR was at St. Petersburg and NASCAR was racing at Fontana. Which series was racing at faster speeds on the track that weekend?
Of course it's not earth-shaking. It's a fact and that's why I am saying that NASCAR will be racing faster than INDYCAR more often this season. Thanks for agreeing.And I've addressed the other part also, medium/large oval racetrack average speeds are naturally higher than road/street course average speeds. Not exactly an earthsaking revelation. BTW, in the one short oval/road course comparison this year, NASCAR 'lost', didn't they?
No, they are products (automobiles) of different manufacturers, but they are not the same. One is bigger, one is smaller. I'm betting that Lincoln is more often the larger car this model year. Turn13 probably will invent some context in which he will argue that 160 cubic feet is 'bigger' than 180 cubic feet, but that's the chance I must take... '160 cubic feet in Lilliput is 'bigger' than 180 cubic feet in the Land of the Giants because Lilliputians can pack a lot more stuff into that amount of space...'Then a Smart and a Lincoln Navigator must be the same product (both being "a car"). So no complaints when the taxi service shows up with a Smart to pick up you and your 4 person party at the airport,eh?
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 04-23-2012 at 08:25 PM.
The product of each series is, indeed, "a race" on Race Day. Some are just conducted at slower speeds than others.OK, a race with openwheel/open cockpit cars on a road/street course and a race with closed wheel/roofed cars on a oval are the 'same', but a two seat urbanmobile and a full size SUV are 'not the same'....I understand...not.No, they are products (automobiles) of different manufacturers, but they are not the same.
Yes, we agree that medium/large ovals have higher average speeds than road/street courses.Thanks for agreeing.
I do intend to keep this thread alive. What I was referring to there was your ridiculous responses.
How so, and what the heck was the first??Another sign of your disingenuousness.
I'm here to share enthusiasm. You're here, apparently, to try and discourage it
The rest of that post was full of the same old mischaracterizations, broken context and (I'm guessing) willful ignorance and misinterpretation that I am going to do my best to ignore from now on
No, both series offer races as their products - just like both manufacturers offer cars as their products. But those products (of the series' and the manufacturers) are not identical. One series offers an abundance of city street courses while the other offers almost exclusively oval racing. One manufacturer offers small, basic urban transportation while the other opts to produce large luxury vehicles. Both racing series offer races as their products, both manufacturers offer cars as theirs. Lincolns are bigger than Smarts.
Cool. And because NASCAR opts to utilize more of those medium/large ovals into their schedule, the resultant speeds at which they race are usually much higher that INDYCAR's city street race speeds. NASCAR is faster than INDYCAR on Race Day.Yes, we agree that medium/large ovals have higher average speeds than road/street courses.
Which of us is endlessly arguing that "160 mph is 'faster' than 180 mph..."?
Reread post #1131 and try to comprehend what is written.How so, and what the heck was the first??
"160 mph is 'faster' than 180 mph..." and "I guess I'll be 72 mph faster than NASCAR on I-74 here shortly too..."The rest of that post was full of the same old mischaracterizations, broken context and (I'm guessing) willful ignorance and misinterpretation that I am going to do my best to ignore from now on
How can anyone mischaracterize the person who gave us those pearls of wisdom?
Actual performance is relevant here. 180 on a 215 track is not performing as well as doing 102 on a 30 mph track.
NASCAR may race at a higher MPH, but at a lower percentage of the track record, and typically 30 MPH slower than IndyCar on that same track.
NASCAR achieves a lower percentage of the (potential) track record wherever they race.
56mph on the straightaway is faster than 55mph anywhere, any time, but it isn't necessarily racing faster. Racing is going as fast as you can. Obviously, an IndyCar can go faster
Racing is getting more of all there is to get out of a piece of track.
IndyCars get more. IndyCars go faster. IndyCars race faster. IndyCar is the faster racing series.
Last edited by Turn13; 04-23-2012 at 10:49 PM.
And, just as obviously, they don't go faster most Race Days.Obviously, an IndyCar can go faster
When NASCAR is lapping TMS at 180 and INDYCAR is lapping Long Beach at 102 your claim is pure Jabberwocky.
I see you are still removing context and posting partial quotes. But I'm the endlessly disingenuous one
Please, please, please. A girl beating up boys is unseemly. Brutally funny and an obvious mismatch in every way, for sure. But still unseemly. Try to pick on someone your own size.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks