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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
Originally Posted by MeI rest my caseOriginally Posted by PenelopePitstop
Last edited by Turn13; 02-07-2012 at 06:44 AM.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
For every second that the track is green in 2012, NASCAR racers will, on average, be faster than Indycar racers.
Do you dispute this?
If you asked any racing fan which car is a faster, Indycar or NASCAR....what do you think they would say?