So when those Indycars that are capable of turning laps in the 215 range are forced to go only 105 on many of the courses that the series chooses run on do you get any enjoyment out of it, or do you switch channels to watch the Cup cars doing a much faster 140?Originally Posted by Turn13
I enjoy the hell out of the IndyCars at 140, because I know the NASCAR vehicles on the same track would be going 80.
Among other things.
"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
Most fans just want to watch fast cars. Most weekends that would be NASCAR, don't you agree?
In fact, until the last Sunday in May, every NASCAR race will feature faster action on the track compared to Indycar. Faster racing gets a bigger audience.
Get the point? NASCAR does.
By that rationale we should have fenders, too, then.
If the cars are faster by nature, but slower by choice, something is wrong with the picture and racing fans who love faster cars know it.
Even you.
You really think I'm going to negatively react to a personal insult from you?
I realize I'm not going to change your mind. It's enough to me, personally, just to be right, and the hell with it all
I'll take faster cars over faster tracks. Otherwise, I'd have to consider Richmond inferior.
I'm not trying to change your preferences, I don't even care if you see the light. I just want Indycar to realize their massive folly in this.
If Indycars are circulating Barber at 105 on the same day that Cup cars are doing 188 at Fontana, the Cup cars are the faster of the two on that given day.
Indycar in its chosen element is giving its fans an inferior product. They had better correct this issue if they want viewers.
But not on the same track on the same day. Or any dayI think most fans can understand the difference, but maybe not the ones that believe Darrell's subtitle
Inferior in your opinion, perhaps. But then, by your standards, a series that ran at Atlanta every day is better than one that runs Bristol or Richmond even once.Indycar in its chosen element is giving its fans an inferior product. They had better correct this issue if they want viewers.
Even you can't really believe that.
Since we now calculate "times" in most races (the Kevin Lee trademarked 'non-ovals') and not actual MPH, the viewing public doesn't know the difference anyway. Although I am sure it doesn't take them long to see how slow the action is at most places. Watching 230 MPH race cars putt around a one-lane city street at 100 MPH isn't exactly my idea of "the fastest racing in the world" as Randy likes to boast about. It may take talent and bravery and skill to not make mistakes and figure out a way to pass someone once-in-a-while on those types of circuits, but that doesn't make it very interesting to watch on TV or in person. Its just a very hard product to sell on TV to anyone outside the diehard fan.
"Man Buford, Scotty Dixon just layed down a 1:02 second lap. He is really hauling ass in that carousel. I betcha he overtakes Simona in Turn 14".
Prime Minister of Gackland
Darrell's subtitle is correct. Especially when compared to Indycar on the tracks of their choice.But not on the same track on the same day. Or any day
Did you replace Disciple as resident misinterpreter? I said faster - which is easily proven - not better. My standards are the same as yours when it comes to observing. Our difference lies in the proper evaluation of what we see. Faster is faster. NASCAR's events, on average, produce faster racing than Indycar's.Inferior in your opinion, perhaps. But then, by your standards, a series that ran at Atlanta every day is better than one that runs Bristol or Richmond even once.
You want to say that Indycars can go faster. In NASCAR, they actually do go faster.
Just the facts. Darrell's subtitle is correct.Even you can't really believe that.
I wonder why USAC calls them Time Trials. Every USAC event I've been to lists lap times, not speeds, on the qualification charts. It makes sense on tracks where speeds aren't constant. Easier, too - more direct.
I rest my case
Last edited by Turn13; 02-07-2012 at 06:44 AM.
Yep. Indycars can go faster, they just don't. Cup cars actually do go faster on a week-to-week basis.I rest my case
We'll compare them side by side this season and the series that races at slower speeds, on average, will be Indycars.
Name the criteria - Pole speed? Fastest race lap? Race average? Whichever one you want that includes the entire season for each series.
If you want to decline this challenge by specifying only certain portions of the schedule, be my guest. I'll understand.
Your methodology is pretty flawed. Lets throw out this scenario....and see what you think.
Let's say for example, your weekly take home pay is $1,000 versus my weekly take home pay of $800. On average your weekly pay is more than mine. But lets say in addition to my weekly pay I get an annual one-time bonus of $20,000k. All things considered, who ultimately makes more money? In other words, if NASCAR averages 150 mph per race versus Indycar of 130 mph (excluding ovals) but then Indycar has that one-time bonus of 225 mph....who is ultimately faster or more importantly what series is perceived to be ultimately faster.
"Any time that I can be out at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, you're going to see a smile on my face." - Dan Wheldon
"It's crazy how the Indianapolis Motor Speedway can make you so emotional. I went from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows in less than 24 hours." - Alex Tagliani
In what way is it flawed? I claim that, on average for the season NASCAR is faster than Indycar. So I include the entire season. How is that "flawed?"
Place each series' racetracks end to end for the entire season. Which series will average the faster speed on that super lap? NASCAR.
Why is it my scenario includes the entire season but yours needs a special bonus to make things come out the way you wish they were? Because yours is the flawed scenario.
Over the course of the season, NASCAR provides faster racing on the track.
Last edited by PenelopePitstop; 02-07-2012 at 10:06 AM.
Why not compare NASCAR's 3 fastest tracks to Indycar's 3 fastest tracks and then see who is faster?
Or compare same tracks...NASCAR speeds @ Fontana versus Indycar speeds @ Fontana, same for Indy.
If you want to decline this challenge by specifying only certain portions of the schedule, be my guest. I'll understand.
No, I just think it is more reasonable and relevant to compare fastest 3 tracks between the two series and/or tracks raced on by both series. Your methodology is rather myopic. Would you agree all comparsions should include at least comparable conditions (i.e., apples to apples rather than apples to oranges)?
Simple question, is an Indycar faster than a NASCAR? Exclude all your convoluted reasoning on a week to week basis blah blah...again it is myopic and filled with hyperbole. Going back to my previous post....in my example who makes more money? The weekly average is irrelevant, just like the week to week speed comparisions.
Why not settle this with data?In what way is it flawed? I claim that, on average for the season NASCAR is faster than Indycar. So I include the entire season. How is that "flawed?"
Penelope, it's an easy exercise for you to pull 2011 NASCAR race results and obtain an average (simply add the average speeds for each race, then divide by total number of races).
Repeat for IndyCar and compare results.
Here's a start:
Daytona 500 130.326 mph.
Talledega 1 156.261 mph
Indy 500 170.265 mph
new sig pending
By including the entire schedule I'm being complete. By including only 3 tracks, you are the one in favor of myopia.
In a direct comparison on the same track, I would expect the Indycar to be faster. When do they ever do this? Never! Turn on the TV and watch the racing. More often than not in 2012, you'll see NASCAR racing at higher speeds than Indycars.Simple question, is an Indycar faster than a NASCAR?Again, the premise is that over the course of the entire 2012 season, NASCAR is faster. That is fact, not hyperbole. If it wasn't a fact you would be willing to make that comparison. NASCAR fans see faster racing, on average, than indycar fans.Exclude all your convoluted reasoning on a week to week basis blah blah...again it is myopic and filled with hyperbole.Because of your bogus "bonus", you make more money both for the year and on a weekly average. The weekly average is the result of making more money (being faster) for the entire year. Get it?Going back to my previous post....in my example who makes more money? The weekly average is irrelevant, just like the week to week speed comparisions.
No, it is the most reasonable and relevant comparision. You are not comparing apples to apples.
Do both Indycar and NASCAR race @ IMS? Fontana?
Sure, NASCAR speeds are quicker @ Daytona than Indycar's @ St. Pete....but any semi knowledgable race fan still knows what car is truly faster or more importantly would be faster if they both raced on the same track at the same time. Your scenario is like comparing a Porsche speeds when driving in city neighborhood versus a Chevy Malibu's speeds on a highway....yes a Malibu is faster versus the Porsche for that specific situation, but what car is truly faster?
That is exactly my point. That "specific situation" is what Indycar has chosen to compete under - the one that produces slower speeds. Get it? Slower speeds!
On paper the Indycar is faster. On race day NASCAR is faster.
On paper?? An Indycar is faster than a NASCAR...plain and simple. A WR is faster than an offensive lineman...plain and simple.
Which cars are faster @ IMS...Indycars or NASCAR?
I know which car is faster, my NASCAR buddies know which car is faster, a monkey knows which car is faster.....it is an INDYCAR!!! Maybe you are looking at this from a viewpoint than I am....
What if Indycar raced all short oval tracks and NASCAR raced all super-speedways....would you still be messing around with this?
Not on the same track at the same time, though. Not on any of them.
No, do that, this will be good.
And then I'll post the top speed of the day, for each, along with the comparative G loads.
This will be goodI appreciate your zealotry
This. Any semi-knowledable race fan would know this and not waste the time of comparing average speeds on a week to week basis.
And any knowledgable race fan or media person in racing would not attempt to argue otherwise. But according to PenelopePitstop NASCAR should take her impeccable data and promote the hell out of it. I guess my question then would be, why hasn't NASCAR done that?
Yep - not something anyone but the uninformed or the agenda-laden would endorse
This is like saying I'm faster then the fastest human out there, as long as we just count when they are sleeping and I am up walking around
For every second that the track is green in 2012, NASCAR racers will, on average, be faster than Indycar racers.
Do you dispute this?
Yes I do. Will NASCAR be faster @ IMS versus Indycars @ IMS or Fontana? I guess overall, does your methodology really matter or is it truly relevant? Again, why hasn't NASCAR used this as promotion?
If you asked any racing fan which car is a faster, Indycar or NASCAR....what do you think they would say?
Problem is, that's not what is being stated. I can see that you don't understand that, and that's OK. In the long run it doesn't matter.
Enjoy them all.
Why can't you answer the question? Is it because it will disprove your whole point? I get what you are stating...but I don't see how it is truly relevant or what is your ultimate point to all of this? Be honest, does your methodology really mean anything?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks