116 replies to this topic

[Frankbullitt]

I would have loved to have seen one of the old V10 cars to do even a demo run around the track.

[HeadFirst]

From a number of spectators  i.e., popularity, POV, maybe. I really don't have data on viewing figures. But that's not what we are discussing here.

 

It's probably true that Nascar has talent. For that type of racing. If we don't have much and reliable data on how F1 drivers have done in Nascar and viceversa, I guess we have to extrapolate from series with similar type of driving. In the case of Nascar, that would be Indy because they both race, mostly, on ovals. And in that case, we do have more information: F1 drivers have done better in Indy than the other way around.

But that is a little beside the point as everyone knows and agrees that F1 takes more driver talent than Nascar.

 

Regarding the other series, I think we CAN compare as, basically, road racing includes the talent required for racing on ovals. But this doesn't necessarily apply the other way. In short, road racing drivers are more complete than oval racing drivers and rally drivers are, arguably, the most complete of all. Hence, I put most road racing series above oval racing series in terms of driver talent required and observed. I think most would agree.

 

You jump to some startling conclusions based on what???? You say ... "Loeb in WTCC and Solberg in Rally X are overall more talented drivers than anyone currently in Nascar or Indy." and "But that is a little beside the point as everyone knows and agrees that F1 takes more driver talent than Nascar.", but then ... "If we don't have much and reliable data on how F1 drivers have done in Nascar and viceversa, I guess we have to extrapolate from series with similar type of driving."

 

The fact is that NASCAR, INDY, F1, WTCC etc. all are very different series, using different equipment, on different types of courses. They are for the most part not comparable. You can maybe compare Indy roadraces to F1 perhaps, but that's about it. Nascar and Indy have some very talented drivers, experienced in a wide variety of machines raced on different types of courses. It is ridiculous to claim that Loeb and Solberg, as good as they may be, are more talented than the top drivers in Indy or NASCAR.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

From a number of spectators  i.e., popularity, POV, maybe. I really don't have data on viewing figures. But that's not what we are discussing here.

 

It's probably true that Nascar has talent. For that type of racing. If we don't have much and reliable data on how F1 drivers have done in Nascar and viceversa, I guess we have to extrapolate from series with similar type of driving. In the case of Nascar, that would be Indy because they both race, mostly, on ovals. And in that case, we do have more information: F1 drivers have done better in Indy than the other way around.

But that is a little beside the point as everyone knows and agrees that F1 takes more driver talent than Nascar.

 

Regarding the other series, I think we CAN compare as, basically, road racing includes the talent required for racing on ovals. But this doesn't necessarily apply the other way. In short, road racing drivers are more complete than oval racing drivers and rally drivers are, arguably, the most complete of all. Hence, I put most road racing series above oval racing series in terms of driver talent required and observed. I think most would agree.

 

It doesn't work that way. You just can't fabricate some ill-conceived formula based on prejudice, ignorance, and comparing oranges to apples. Somehow I believe your formula is based on "oval drivers just turn left, so road racers turn both ways, therefore they are twice as talented and since rally have to turn left and right and deal with changing traction, they are even more talented".

 

Poppycock, it doesn't work that way. You are basing your information on long-distance observation with nothing to support it. I watch and observe closely a lot of different racing series, and I can state without any hesitation that some NASCAR drivers are just as talented as the very best Formula One drivers. I rate Kyle Busch as equal to Lewis Hamilton. And Dale Sr to Michael Schumacher.

 

Have you ever watched Harvick restart on cold tires?

[Myrvold]

Totally wrong thread guys...

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Indycar doesn't race much on ovals, only one third of the schedule. And everyone knows and agrees that F1 takes more driver talent than NASCAR? Well, do we?

 

Of course not.

[travbrad]

An F1 race would only be 23-23laps long there.

It wouldn't be a very good show for the people attending the track.

 

F1 should stop going to Spa by that logic, and karting tracks would be the best places to go.

[mclarensmps]

F1 should stop going to Spa by that logic, and karting tracks would be the best places to go.

 

Spa has double that number of laps, so that argument makes no sense.

 

 

Anyway, Circuit de la Sarthe is a fantastic endurance track, but a terrible one for F1. 

[travbrad]

Spa has double that number of laps, so that argument makes no sense.

 

 

Anyway, Circuit de la Sarthe is a fantastic endurance track, but a terrible one for F1. 

 

Their argument seemed to be that less laps = worse for spectators, which would make Spa the worst race on the F1 calendar.  I wonder why so many people still go to it?

 

Circuit de la Sarthe would probably be terrible with DRS on those long straights, but without DRS it would probably be better than most of the current F1 circuits in my opinion.  Plus at least some people in France actually care about F1, unlike many of the circuits/nations F1 goes to.  It would be impossible for it to be worse than Magny-Cours, at the very least.  

Edited by travbrad, 13 June 2015 - 06:49.

[sjakie]

Of course not.

thought so (and I agree)

[Docc]

I am not a Nascar fan..but watching those soap boxes down the long straights would be interesting. Three wide drafting and touching at 240mph... Nascar at Monaco ? Culture clash and carnage,,,

 

but just listen to this..

https://www.youtube....h?v=Vky3FKWptlQ

Edited by Docc, 13 June 2015 - 08:08.

[Amphicar]

I am not a Nascar fan..but watching those soap boxes down the long straights would be interesting. Three wide drafting and touching at 240mph... Nascar at Monaco ? Culture clash and carnage,,,

Formula 1 cars may never have raced at Le Mans (other than on the miserable Bugatti circuit) but NASCAR sure has. In 1976, in honour of the US Bicentennial (and to bulk out a field depleted by the first oil crisis), the ACO invited NASCAR to send cars to compete in the 24 Hour Race. Two cars eventually made it: Herschel & Don McGriff's Wedge-powered Dodge Charger and Junie Donlavey's Ford Torino driven by Richard Brooks and Dick Hutcherson.

 

Although both cars were faster than most on the long Mulsanne straight, braking at the end of it was a different matter and they struggled round the corners. The Dodge qualified towards the back of the field and the Torino was dead last. Things didn't improve in the race itself. The Charger expired after two laps with burned pistons while the Torino quit after 11 hours when the transmission failed.

 

[RealRacing]

It doesn't work that way. You just can't fabricate some ill-conceived formula based on prejudice, ignorance, and comparing oranges to apples. I rate Kyle Busch as equal to Lewis Hamilton. And Dale Sr to Michael Schumacher.
 

I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm just trying to establish a comparison at a more basic level, driving a racing car fast if you want to call it that, based on what we've seen. For one, F1 drivers have done better at Indy than the other way around. I'm not saying Indy or Nascar drivers do not have talent, I'm saying that the set of talents or abilities of road racing and rally drivers is more complete than that of oval drivers. Yes they are different but it seems to me that road racers and rally drivers already have more of the talents required for oval racing than the other way around. And it is my personal point of view that driving on road racing courses or rallies has more merit than racing on ovals (with rallies having also more merit than road races).

 

Regarding the driver comparisons you are making, I would venture that you are in a minority there. 

[femi]

Fans' sentiments, national pride etc do not always provide thriving grounds for logical reasoning !

[Amphicar]

Come to think of it, an F1 car has raced in the Le Mans 24 Hours - and here it is:

 

 

The Duckhams-Ford LM1, driven to 12th place in the 1972 race by Chris Craft and owner Alain de Cadenet.

 

The previous year it was a Brabham BT33, driven in the US and Canadian GPs by Chris Craft for de Cadenet's Ecurie Evergreen.

 

A little work by up and coming South African designer Gordon Murray and the Brabham became a Le Mans racer.

[baddog]

It wouldn't 'not work' but it wouldn't really be any good either.

 

The old Hockenheim attracted enough complaints and this would be much more extreme, I dont see the point of outright engine/endurance tests in what is not an endurance series.

[CoolBreeze]

The current F1 cars, or even a 10 year old F1 car would not be able to cope with Le Mans bumps and all. I'm not too sure about the Bugatti circuit though. 

[BRG]

Bumps?  What bumps?  F1 races on bumpier tracks than Le Mans.  Monaco for instance.  I recall that when they resurfaced the Mulsanne Straight years ago, they used laser measurement to get it super smooth.  Of course the trucks using the road the rest of the year soon dealt with that.