But faster than NASCAR's capability.
But faster than NASCAR's capability.
"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
For the most part Cup racing is excruciatingly boring... but I still follow it to see how old friends & acquaintances are doing on the track these days.Originally Posted by PenelopePitstop
And it'll never be the "fastest racing in motorsports"... not even close.
Again, so what? I don't watch it very often, myself.
Who said that it is?And it'll never be the "fastest racing in motorsports"... not even close.
And slower on Race Day by a margin of 3-1 so far this year.
You tell me. After all, you are the one with the %age formula that changes weekly.
But it is 199.172mph faster than any series that is sitting at home this weekend.
The formula never changes - it's the current speed divided by the track record. I think the record might be 212.809 (1987, Awesome Bill from Dawsonville). That would come to 94%, which is pretty good for NASCAR
Probably because IndyCar never ran there, though.
Rusty Wallace had an unofficial speed once of 216-something, I think, which would put Cup at more like 92% so far, but that's that. 92% is about what they did at Daytona, too, I think. But most places they run where IndyCar has, too, they will only be at about 75% or so, because the record will be IndyCar's. IndyCar is currently running about 98%, but at Indy and Fontana it could be as low as 91%. Still faster than Cup by 20 or 30 mph, though. Maybe 40
Just think - when Carl Edwards or Jimmie Johnson are on their qualifying laps, balls out, an IndyCar would pass them like cars on the road pass a bicycle
I believe with respect to the record, as well as in absolute "lap average" mph, this is the fastest that NASCAR will be all year, is it not?
Last edited by Turn13; 05-05-2012 at 01:56 PM.
AJ did 217 mph at Talladega in 1974 in one of his Coyote's.The formula never changes - it's the current speed divided by the track record. I think the record might be 212.809 (1987, Awesome Bill from Dawsonville). That would come to 94%, which is pretty good for NASCAR
Probably because IndyCar never ran there, though.
Rusty Wallace had an unofficial speed once of 216-something, I think, which would put Cup at more like 92% so far, but that's that. 92% is about what they did at Daytona, too, I think. But most places they run where IndyCar has, too, they will only be at about 75% or so, because the record will be IndyCar's. IndyCar is currently running about 98%, but at Indy and Fontana it could be as low as 91%. Still faster than Cup by 20 or 30 mph, though. Maybe 40
Just think - when Carl Edwards or Jimmie Johnson are on their qualifying laps, balls out, an IndyCar would pass them like cars on the road pass a bicycle
I believe with respect to the record, as well as in absolute "lap average" mph, this is the fastest that NASCAR will be all year, is it not?
Keith Koether http://www.kkraceshots.com
Ex ARCA, ASA and local bullring crewdog. I remember when racing was really racing and the Talladega Express!!!
I thought I remembered something about that but only used wikipedia for my quick reference
So they're about 92% of 1970's IndyCar. Thanks!
Amazing - you have changed your formula again. ...that condition, that track, that car... If your own words mean so little to you, they mean even less to any of us.
NASCAR was qualifying at speeds more than 190mph. The other series was idle. Again. Zero is a common speed for them when others are racing, and zero is slower.
I trust that the 8.7 people following this thread at this point know what utter bullcrap that is (as I have directly responded to it several times), so going forward I'll just try to let it lie there in the sun
Center Grove Trojans
2008 5A Football State Champs
2011 Track State Champs
If they know bullcrap they know you.I trust that the 8.7 people following this thread at this point know what utter bullcrap that is (as I have directly responded to it several times), so going forward I'll just try to let it lie there in the sun
...that condition, that track, that car... (maybe, maybe not, well not really that car)
Context is something you squawk about but can't live with.
Slower racing from fast cars is your passion - nothing wrong with that.
Slower on Race Day 3-1, not even running on Race Day 6/10 weeks this year.
Just a reminder.
Hey Penelope,
Say it's a track that IndyCar and NASCAR both race on. If there's a difference in 'official' track length, will you normalize whatever speed you use for racing?
new sig pending
Which track? The only common tracks this year are Fontana, Indianapolis, and Texas. My guess is that Indycars will be faster on those tracks (although they may be 'slower' using Turn13's percentage of all possible speed for that condition, that track, that car formula (part 1) that he believed in 100% for three days). Ask him.
I can't believe this thread is still going. I'll repost again after pole day when an Indycar posts the fastest average LAP speed of any racing car in the world in 2012. Then again after race day when an Indycar posts the fastest race lap of 2012. I'll also post after Texas and Fontana.
I guess then you can compare NASCAR's oval average for the season to Indycars.
PP, your continued fascination with 'number of weekends faster' is baffling to say the least. By that reasoning my slow commute to work every day makes my car faster than a NASCAR as I'm probably ahead by about 100 drives or so, when you count all the times I've driven to work in traffic at an average speed of about 40 or so... But the Cup cars have all been in their workshops not racing.
It is baffling to you because you do not understand the basic premise of the comparison.
The OP wants to remind the fans that INDYCAR is faster than NASCAR (not you or Turn13's Honda). The problem? Week after week NASCAR puts on races that are faster than INDYCAR. NASCAR has held ten races thus far this season and only once did INDYCAR have faster racing.
Indycars are faster than Cup cars on the race track. INDYCAR is slower than NASCAR on Race Day.
The British had a vastly superior military force compared to the Colonies, but they lost the war because they didn't perform when it counted.
This needs to be a subforum right next to crispy.
91 -- Buddy Lazier -- Delta Faucet Hemelgarn Racing -- Reynard/Ford
I trust that the 8.7 people following this thread at this point know what utter bullcrap that is (as I have directly responded to it several times), so going forward I'll just try to let it lie there in the sunThere seem to be piles of that stuff accumulating on both sides of the argument. I mean... 46 pages? 46 pages of yes it is, no it's not, but it kinda is 'cept it's sorta not...I trust that the 8.7 people following this thread at this point know what utter bullcrap that is (as I have directly responded to it several times), so going forward I'll just try to let it lie there in the sun
Oy...
Perhaps I, the .7, can start to ease this thread into a nice, quiet grave.
To Penelope's point... the IndyCars, while capable of running somewhere around 220 mph laps, very often do not go that fast. In fact, during races, they're likely to do that only 3 days this entire year. 500 miles at Indy, 300 at Texas, and 400 at Fontana. 1200 miles of IndyCar approaching its top speed.
Roughly 5-6 hours (less commercials and yellow flags) of what I think Turn 13 would call Indycar's top product.
Over an entire year.
Now, while I submit that time at those three tracks (and to a lesser extent the time at Milwaukee and Iowa) is very exciting time... it's just not all that much time for the viewing public to consume. If the entire season's worth of top tier product can be consumed in a single 8 hour workday, IMO that's not enough.
NASCAR, on the other hand, runs many more races at or near their top speeds. Only at the restrictor plate tracks are they running appreciably slower than they can. They are 3500 pound beasts, they're not going to run 225 mph laps at Texas, but they're running as fast as they can within the car limits. And, most importantly to somebody with a remote or ticket buying cash, they do it A LOT. Most races are twice as long as IndyCar, and there are 36 Cup weekends of ovals (including the All Star race and the Duels.)
So... if you, a fan, want to watch some fast cars oval racing on most weekends, unless it's one of the 5 days the IICS runs, it's Cup.
Given the attendance and ratings disparities, it seems to me that "faster" is less relevent than "more impressive". It seems fans are less impressed seeing fighter aircraft sized mini cars zipping around at 220-230 than they are seeing larger, more car-like, cars doing 180-200. Kinda like how seeing Evil Knievel jumping buses on a motorcycle was more impressive than seeing him in a rocket jumping a canyon.
Fans seem to agree when they vote with their eyeballs and wallets.
IndyCar has been artificially limiting the cars' speeds for too long IMHO. Tony Stewart ran laps in the 1998 Texas race at 227, now we're given 215 and supposed to think it's fast. We saw laps in the 90's at Fontana at around 237 (adjusting downward for inconsistent track measurements), this year will probably be under 220.
If IndyCar had remained flush in an engine and tire war, does anybody not think we'd be seeing laps approaching 245-250 mph at Indy?
I do. So am I going to be impressed at 220 this year, even with a new car? No, not really.
Even tho they're faster than the behemoths running in Charlotte that same day. The Cup cars will be going balls out both weekends at Charlotte. We'll be seeing all they have to offer.
That won't be the case at Indy, we'll be left to imagine what they may have been able to offer.
Last edited by SoundMan360; 05-10-2012 at 07:54 PM.
I believe 2 of the 3 have differing track length measurements.
Then do the proper research and analyze the result, compare that result to whichever of Turn13's track records (that condition, that track, that car (or some other car, maybe, depending on whether he believes himself or not) you want and tell us that INDYCAR was faster or slower than NASCAR on that track for that condition, maybe.
Knock yourself out. Show your work if you want to and be sure to get Turn13's seal of approval before he changes his mind again or you'll have to do it all over.
Or you can just accept that for those three weekends INDYCAR will actually be faster than NASCAR. It won't be enough to tip the scales for the season, but it will make your contingent temporarily happy.
I do actually get the point that PP is trying to make, that a casual fan turning on the tv is more likely to see an a NASCAR going faster than an Indycar, as they race on high speed ovals more often, and they have a longer schedule with more races. I guess to when you say NASCAR you should also include all the nationwide races as well, which would mean they would have an overwhelming amount of faster races.
But I think a casual fan is also more interested in absolutes as well. Ask the man on the street who the fastest man alive is. They will say Usain Bolt. Why? Because he holds the world record. It's all about that one time. That is how the average person defines faster. Now you could argue that Asaffa Powell is actually a better sprinter, as he holds the record for most sub-10 second runs. This is mostly due to the fact that he has been competing longer and so has run more races, I have no doubt Bolt will break that record.
I think to the casual fan, the only thing that really matters is absolutes. If someone who has never heard of NASCAR or Indycar wanted to know which was faster, they would probably only be interested in knowing "What is the fastest a NASCAR and an Indycar goes". The answer would be "about 200 mph for NASCAR and about 225 for Indycar". I don't think they would be to concerned about the ratio of street-to-ovals and the fact that NASCAR runs a longer schedule.
Now due to the mass media saturation of NASCAR (and admittedly, because they race more often) , to a lot of people in America, motor racing = NASCAR. Which is where T13's point comes in, it is up to Indycar to remind people that there is no other closed circuit racing car in the world (even F1) that will lap as fast as in Indycar in 2012. If you want to see a race car turn a 220+ mph lap, there is only one series that will do it. Admittedly, not very often.
Rookies ran Indy faster yesterday than the Cup cars have ever raced... faster.
How many people saw it?
"invisible" is the word for that
also: "irrelevant"
Yep... in races 2 days this year... for a few hours each.
Which is why it's EXTREMELY important that the sanctioning body and league officials NOT SCREW THOSE FEW HOURS UP
They simply can't afford to waste that time. So every second that is spent on cheese graters or misstating the lengths of football fields needs to be eliminated.
Faster on Race Day 2012 as of 5/12:
NASCAR - 10
INDYCAR - 1
Don't you think we really need to end this thing?
Each side of this argument has absolutely no intention of ever recognizing the other's points.
All that's left is 12 pages of "show me where I said"
Surely the internet deserves better than that!
No, the score started out NASCAR 23 INDYCAR 0.
The score started out at 0-0.
Need I remind you, there have been 11 Race Weekends this year. On Race Weekends where both series conducted races, the score is NASCAR 3 - INDYCAR 1.
Sit at home and cry about being ignored or race and be seen as the faster series. Your choice.
Better than what... PP's false premise?Don't you think we really need to end this thing?
Each side of this argument has absolutely no intention of ever recognizing the other's points.
All that's left is 12 pages of "show me where I said"
Surely the internet deserves better than that!
Not by your formula. And it is quite disengenious of you to deny it.The score started out at 0-0.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks