Trulli´s opinion in an interview he gave to Gazzetta Dello Sport (Italy) after his NASCAR test in Florida with Michael Waltrip Racing.

Q. What was the biggest adjustment coming from F1?

JT. Getting used to fenders, a closed cockpit and of running such mass. The proximity to walls? no big deal, you get used to them.

Q. What struck you about the experience?

JT. The car management and the tuning, which allows for infinite possibilities, definitively superior to Formula1. To give you an idea, to have the same level of adjustment in Formula 1 as is available in NASCAR you would need to completely redesign the cars. Another thing that struck me is that you need to be extremely clean in your driving, something I'm good at.

Q. And what's missing in NASCAR compared to Formula 1?

JT. Aerodynamics are essentially non existent.

Then bye Jarno, after reading this for me it seems pretty clear he won't be at F1 next season

Did you expect him to say: "I couldnt get a seat from any F1 team, so I had to settle whatever second rated series would hire me, because I still want to race"?

If Kimi moves to WRC, I wont be surprised if we can read soon from news that "Kimi thinks rally is more demanding and better in every aspect compared to F1" , JPM and JV have both had their say about how awful F1 actually is and how whatever they are doing now is superior to F1 in every way.

That´s called sour grapes.

He didn't necessarily say that NASCAR is superior to F1. All he said was that the 'Car management and tuning' is superior to F1. I don't even really understand what he's trying to say though.

I dunno, I can appreciate the skill required in what is mainly Oval racing. I just think NASCAR is going down an even worse path than F1 in terms of rule changes. It is essentially a spec series now. Especially with the "Car of Tomorrow" (or Today, now) that basically means all cars are exactly the same.

''National Association of STOCK CAR Auto Racing''... my ****ing arse.

Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out Jarno

He's trying to say that the level of control over car setup in NASCAR is far superior to F1. And it is. There's so much stuff to play with and fine tune, even during the race.

Heck, even Indy Cars were more adjustable than F1 cars during the race. When was the last time you saw a Gurney flap/wickerbill removed or inserted during the race, the drivers adjusting the rollbars and weight jacking from the cockpit, or the pit crew adjusting the front wing (they did adjust it in 2009)?

Where does he say NASCAR is superior? I see him acknowledging that both series have different challenges, and that NASCAR offers superior car tuning advantages (whatever he means by that) to the driver, but I'm missing the overall superior bit.


He's likely right, BTW, F1 and NASCAR are not the same. The cars, tracks and general set up of the two series are very different, with different advantages and disadvantages, and racing in each requires many of the same skills but a few unique ones as well.

I think what he's trying to say is that it's easier to adjust the cars to suit your liking in NASCAR than in F1. Given that NASCAR is basically all about finding mechanical grip because the bodies are basically spec, that's pretty intuitive.

He also says you have to be smoother in your driving, and that's also pretty intuitive given how heavy the cars and skinny the tires are.



My thoughts exactly.

Stock car racing is a challenge that requires lots of skill. I don't think the cars require as great an amount of overall skill to drive as F1 cars do, but they require specialization of a very particular set of skills that are very hard to master to the level required to be competitive in NASCAR.

As far as the series itself is concerned, NASCAR itself was ruined irretrievably by the introduction of the Chase. The movement over the last decade to spec bodies also sucks very badly, as is the fact that the cars themselves are marketing pieces for four-door consumer cars rather than representative of actual performance muscle cars that are sold to consumers, which is what it used to be and should be.

Probably the worst thing about having a spec body series like NASCAR is that it's even easier for big money teams to dominate, as they can spend ungodly amounts on finding the extra 2-3 hundredths of a second a lap from a spring setting that actually turns out to be vital. In the days when teams could do basically anything to the cars and were running the body specifications that basically matched the road car models that were raced, we saw lots of different teams emerge and compete.

Sorry guys about the misleading headlines, but I´m trying to write something about in my blog and I´d like to read you opinions about it. There are already great stuffs written here. Thanks a lot!

Have fun with your plagiarism

"Trulli slams Nascar for lacking aerodynamical challenges"

"Trulli unimpressed by the proximity to walls in Nascar racing"

"Aerodynamics non existant, claims angry Trulli"

dude, he did not say NASCAR is superior to F1.. Is that what you really got from these three questions?.. If that is what you understood then you have serious comprehension issues.

IMO Trulli gives an opinion which is not controversial at all. He believes and is correct that a NASCAR has great scope and parameters to set up your car, than you would have in a F1 car and he is absolutely right. But please don't take the bate and rile against the Thread title. This is the same sort of headline gutter websites like PlanetF1 write and when you actually read the article, it bares nothing in relation to the sensationalist headline.

"Trulli: Formula 1 needs 'complete redesign' "

I think you understood his point 100%. There is no question in NASCAR one can have greater impact on laptimes with setup changes; when was the last time you saw Alonso or Hamilton struggling to stay in top 15, and then flying after quick changes during pitstop? Trulli also could have said in NASCAR the driver has far greater importance when it comes to setups. Dunno where this "NASCAR is superior to F1" thingy came from, though?

As someone who has only really got into NASCAR since Juan Pablo joined the series, the thing that has most struck and impressed me about the category is the need to continually adjust the car as the race progresses and the track conditions evolve. Even if you have a dominant car early on, the wrong adjustments can send you back to 20th and vice versa. At some tracks different grooves and different lines are more effective at different stages of the race. As a result the races tend to be much more three-dimensional - its uncommon to see flag-to-flag victories. I think that is probably what Trulli is getting at - the drivers technical feedback is of far greater importance during a race than in F1.

I wouldn't say he is that accurate though saying "aero is non-existent" - it most certainly is, particularly at the intermediate tracks. Getting out in clear air is still of huge benefit.

Neither series is superior, just different.

The teams were the driving force of the COT, because of them spending ungodly amounts of money on tweaking the aerodynamics of the old cars' bodies, and especially the noses. NASCAR formerly operated on a 'template' basis. Fit the template to the body and you could race By the time of the demise of the old car, the templates fit the areas in question, but the whole rest of the car was totally distorted by the teams, not to mention how the bodies were set on the frames. If you think they spend buckets of money on the 'springs' which is a misnomer on the COT, the money they spent on the old cars shocks and springs was just as much. Now the COT essentially rides on urethane donuts, and the money is spent in the chemistry/compressibilty of those units.
Any series, including F-1, is handcuffed to reactionary measures when it comes to setting the rules. One team or another is always going to find the sweet spot, or gray area (see Brawn) in the rules package that is exploitable. At that point in order to provide some sort of competetive action a rules body must react, hence the COT, banning of traction control, diffuser rulings and so forth. While it is easiest to blame the series management since it is a fixed target, in the vast majority of cases, it is the race teams themselves that are truly the driving force in rules changes, for better or worse in the eyes of the fans.

...because he tested on a half-mile circuit.

Just because a Nascar Vessel "has infinite car setting possibilities", it doesn't mean it's more difficult than F1.
Quite the opposite.
Due to the Aero and Mechanical effect on grip and the lighter weight and more responsible engine [HP/Kg], a F1 is much more sensitive to setting changes.

Good luck Jarno, people call Kimi lazy, but you are on pole.

Running solo.

Exactly

Hehehe

His comments about being close to the wall can only be taken in the context of that particular racetrack which is not even on the calendar..
All the tracks are different and in some if you push just a bit too much you cannot avoind hitting the wall..
This was only his first impression, he now needs to get in the track and avoid getting passed by 43 other cars by racing really hard to make a second assesment.. I am pretty sure his surprise will be of a greater magnitude..
For those interested check out tomorrow's afternoon race.. Scott Speed will be starting the race in 2nd place.. Just tune in to check out how he will be dropping like a stone as soon as the green flag waves..

He didn't say what your subject title reads.

the COT is reportidly very sensitive to changes, and it does essentialy run on bump stops due to the splitter, and a max static splitter height of 4 inches, which isnt great...

I wouldnt of thought a nascar was more adjustable than a f1 car in the long term, because a f1 team could design and build the new bits for virtualy anything to the desired change, a nascar team cant in alot of area's...

f1 driver has a few adjustments inrace (or qualy now)

front wing
diff settings
engine settings
gearbox?
and the teams can adjust front wing and tyre pressures at the pitstops...

nascar in comparison
driver can turn on and off cooling fans
can change lines (not really viable in f1 in all but a few turns all year)
and in the pitstops theres
wedge
trackbar
tyre pressures
tape on the grill (similer to front wing, but effects cooling)
plus theres stuff like spring rubbers and shims
2 or 4 tyre stops aswell

I don't really buy that comment from Trulli. In NASCAR there's very few aero changes you can do so that alone makes it less configurable than a F1 car.

Which parts of F1 car are NOT adjustable during the race? You can change suspension, tyre pressures, tyre camber, gearbox, engine mapping, front wing, rear wing, cooling ducts, brake balance, fuel-mixture etc.

here comes the experts of the board who ofcourse have driven both cars to know what they are talking about.
keep it coming guys . I want to hear all this wisdom. LOL

If a car has 50 or more adjustable parameters, aero would be only a few of that in F1. The most aeroadjustments/development happens in the factory, and not many parameters are left to the race weekend.

What adjustments cannot be made during the race weekend?

Using that logic, there would be very few things we could discuss here.

Exactly. All he meant was the adjustability of the cars' handing characteristics during the race. Way to blow it all out of proportion, OP.

Also, everyone else in this thread before King Six: way to get trolled.

I must have missed the memo or something. I did not know following JPM to NASCAR made you the leading expert of stock car racing? AFAIK you haven´t driven any type of racing car, let alone F1 or COT.

Other posters aren´t supposed to question or interpret Trulli´s comments? Fine. Yet, in following post you are doing exactly the same. If Jarno says proximity of walls is non issue, who are you to question him?

True, even if it has nothing to do with this thread.

I guess if Alonso were in NASCAR he'd be an elastomer chemist.

You can change suspension, tyre camber, and cooling ducts during an F1 race? I really need to start watching more closely!

Sorry, meant race weekend naturally. And with cooling ducts I meant the barge boards that direct the air to cooling ducts. My bad.

I am not debating or questioning what trulli said about the proximity of the walls. What I said was that not all tracks are the same. Trulli's comments are limited to what he experienced on that track. And I am not an expert on this subject, those who have driven both car are. JPM is one of them. By now he has driven as many races in NASCAR as he ran in F1.

when people begin to pretend to know more about a race car than an actual professional race car driver I just have to laugh, sorry.

I'm not an expert in Nascar, but I know the challenges are quite different indeed.
There are specific and different cars for circuits, long and short oval tracks, double blader tires with different tire pressures, misaligned axles [oval], longer suspension travel and bumpier tracks, etc.

But I still think the fine set up of a F1 over a greater variety of tracks is harder than the very specific of oval ones.

JPM ?
The one that couldn't outpace the lazy one ?

Becken ?
From Livio's blog ?

"Man who spent 12 years in Formula 1 and who never bothered with NASCAR suddenly discovers that NASCAR is actually better, by astonishing coincidence at the same time as he loses his F1 drive."

"NASCAR need more downforce - Trulli".

and what do you know mickey?

I love the headlines - keep 'em coming...

Trulli: My words were misinterpreted

upto qualifying its open, but I think once Q1 starts, or you roll out the garage, your locked into your setup pretty much, from then on what you can adust is front wing, tyre pressures and whatever engine/diff trickery you got... and I think you can only adjust the brake ducts (typicaly with tape) if the climatic conditions change

"Trulli: NASCAR Aero so poor not even Badger could handle it"