179 replies to this topic

[karlth]

Taken from The Onion: (warning, satire)

CONCORD, NC—A paralyzing fear of precipitation kept dozens of highly skilled competition drivers, all of them trained to drive roll-cage equipped cars mere inches from one another at speeds exceeding 200 miles per hour for extended periods of time, from finishing the Coca-Cola 600 Monday. "I'm overjoyed to win the race, but I'm even more relieved that I didn't have to face the worst horror known to the professional racer: falling moisture," said David Reutimann, who was declared the winner when officials pronounced the track "horrifyingly damp" after only 227 laps and halted NASCAR's longest race. "Every race driver, except for maybe the guys in Formula One, and the Le Mans drivers, the Rolex Series, and rally drivers, I guess, and those guys in amateur racing...anyway, every single racing driver knows that if you drive in the rain you will automatically crash. No one in NASCAR wants to see crashes." Reutimann then thanked his sponsors and rushed off to hide in his motor home until the sun came out.

http://www.theonion....ource=a-section

[Ross Stonefeld]

You can't on an oval.

[jeze]

You can't on an oval.

You can, but you can assume there would be carnage ;)

[brabhamBT19]

You can't on an oval.

it s a myth

road courses are much worse because water can accumulate in litle lakes, while on oval because of the banking all warter goes down and nothing accumulates

[Ross Stonefeld]

It isn't a problem because of water levels.

[brabhamBT19]

It isn't a problem because of water levels.

speed is adaptive, remember

[Demo.]

can you imagine almost any other form of motor racing saying we cant come out to play its raining.
they would get sacked apart from in America.
look at any other form of racing be it touring cars, tin top, or open wheeled they all race in the wet.
it gets wet you slow down or you crash simple really all the others can do it so why not the ones who only turn left.
The F1 boys would not have all come in if it had been wet at Indy so it cant be the tracks, the touring cars do it with less down force so it cant be the cars, just leaves the drivers.

[Ross Stonefeld]

speed is adaptive, remember

Your comprehension however, is not.

[Ross Stonefeld]

can you imagine almost any other form of motor racing saying we cant come out to play its raining.
they would get sacked apart from in America.
look at any other form of racing be it touring cars, tin top, or open wheeled they all race in the wet.
it gets wet you slow down or you crash simple really all the others can do it so why not the ones who only turn left.
The F1 boys would not have all come in if it had been wet at Indy so it cant be the tracks, the touring cars do it with less down force so it cant be the cars, just leaves the drivers.

Indycars don't race on ovals in the wet either.

[MichaelPM]

The F1 boys would not have all come in if it had been wet at Indy.

Interesting point.

[karlth]

A lot of racing series run on ovals on slippery surfaces (usually dirt).

Why can't NASCAR?

[Imperial]

It's not whether they can race in the wet, it's whether they should.

If a NASCAR or Indycar oval race was held in the rain they'd naturally be crawling around the place for several hours. Would you sit and watch that on TV? Of course not, it would be tedium beyond imagination. If's always better to delay the event to either later that day or the next day.

[Demo.]

please re-read i did not say F1 would not race in the wet they never stop for the rain unless they are racing through lakes.
they WOULD NOT stop a race just because of a few drops of water.
my comments were meant to be tongue in cheek as if you check where that article came from they carry such great news stories as
Deriba Merga (a marathon runner!!) Dedicates Boston Marathon Victory To Pit Crew
and
Cash-Strapped Indy 500 To Charge Dollar-A-Lap Toll

I think the thread starter has caught a few people

Edited by Demo., 03 June 2009 - 11:54.

[Ross Stonefeld]

A lot of racing series run on ovals on slippery surfaces (usually dirt).

Why can't NASCAR?

They can, and do, with the right setups and tires and a host of other modifications for the surface.

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 03 June 2009 - 11:53.

[McGuire]

road racing in rain: 80 mph into gravel trap

oval racing in rain: 180 mph into concrete wall

[potmotr]

It isn't a problem because of water levels.

Excuse my ignorance, but would be the problem?

Other than tyres, stagger (do they still use that?) is it a case of the water running down the banked oval etc?

Cna't they simply bolt on rain tyres, set the cars up even softer than they already are and go for it?

[Rob]

oval racing in rain: 180 mph into concrete wall

Only if you crash

In the dry you can end up doing 180mph into a concrete wall. If that's deemed unsafe then they shouldn't be racing on ovals at all.

[Demo.]

if it is wet and you are doing 180 on a corner you deserve to end up in the wall its the drivers responcability to only drive as fast as it is possable to get round the track and for your information f1 drivers do a hell of a lot more than 180MPH in the wet they just know to slow down before the bendy bits.
Is it too much to ask nascar drivers to slow down for 3-4 bends a lap most other forms of racing need to do it far more times each lap, or is it true that the only breaks they have in the cars are tea breaks?
and how to tea breaks stack up against carbon brakes?

edit news flash from the same site this story was taken from.
Texas Constructs U.S. Border Wall To Keep Out Unwanted Americans.

Edited by Demo., 03 June 2009 - 12:07.

[brabhamBT19]

@ mister short sentence

by saying speed is adaptive I ment they can choose either to nail it and finish in the wall or not to nail it and finish the race. capisci. just like in F1, if you have 100mph corner you wont take it at 100mph in the rain youll take in at 60mph or even 40mph if that is neceserry. The one who manages to go through with greater speed while not crashing will most probably win the race. That is BTW the whole point of motorracing mister

[brabhamBT19]

road racing in rain: 80 mph into gravel trap

oval racing in rain: 180 mph into concrete wall

who said they would ran 180mph they would slow down if it rains, besides they go 180mph in the wall in the dry too, so whats the big deal

[brabhamBT19]

It's not whether they can race in the wet, it's whether they should.

If a NASCAR or Indycar oval race was held in the rain they'd naturally be crawling around the place for several hours. Would you sit and watch that on TV? Of course not, it would be tedium beyond imagination. If's always better to delay the event to either later that day or the next day.

completely wrong, the pace would drop, but for sure there would be some guys who will explore the limits

[babe]

completely wrong, the pace would drop, but for sure there would be some guys who will explore the limits

If they could see in the extremely poor visibility, and if they were totally sure they wouldn't be hydroplaning off to the scene of an accident that nobody else could see either. Especially in a series where the cars don't run with lights or wipers.

And that's always assuming they've finally come up with a rain tyre that can run meaningfully quickly on a paved oval without ripping chunks out of itself over the course of a few laps.

I appreciate that what you know about the realities of oval racing can be written on the back of half a postage stamp, so I'll make it simple for you. Why not go and look how a tyre wears on a paved oval, and compare that with how one wears on a road circuit, then consider what that would mean for wet tyres, their treads and their compounds.

Then come back here and apologise.

Yours faithfully.

BorderReiver (all round oval racing leg-end ;) ) posting on his G/F's account because it feels silky against his skin!

Edited by Gilles4Ever, 03 June 2009 - 12:56.
Personal attack

[B Squared]

Oval racing in the rain has been discussed here before:

http://forums.autosp...w...40&start=40

Brian

[Tenmantaylor]

Whilst Im sure it is physically possible I dont think it should. When these cars break adhesion in the dry the huge centrifugal forces from running such steep bankings at such speeds often makes the cars look like they are in the wet already. Factor in the huge stopping distances there would be some horrendous accidents.

[The Ragged Edge]

Just a bunch of yellow belly pu$$ie$. I enjoy Nascar racing most times, but not racing in the wet and the excuses Nascar make for not doing so defies belief. When the track is damp or has serious amounts of water on it, your driving speed reflects this. Instead of doing 35 second laps, you'll do 51 second laps. Its time for Nascar to stick on the wets.

[Hippo]

Also don't forget the spotters. Neither NASCAR nor Indycar races on ovals when the spotters cannot see what's happening. This applies to fog. And it certainly would apply to the spray caused by the 43 cars running in the rain. It would just be very dangerous to run under such conditions. There's no point to do it really. They don't claim to be the best skilled drivers on the planet. Nothing to prove there.

[brabhamBT19]

If they could see in the extremely poor visibility, and if they were totally sure they wouldn't be hydroplaning off to the scene of an accident that nobody else could see either. Especially in a series where the cars don't run with lights or wipers.

And that's always assuming they've finally come up with a rain tyre that can run meaningfully quickly on a paved oval without ripping chunks out of itself over the course of a few laps.

I appreciate that what you know about the realities of oval racing can be written on the back of half a postage stamp, so I'll make it simple for you. Why not go and look how a tyre wears on a paved oval, and compare that with how one wears on a road circuit, then consider what that would mean for wet tyres, their treads and their compounds.

Then come back here and apologise.

Yours faithfully.

BorderReiver (all round oval racing leg-end ;) ) posting on his G/F's account because it feels silky against his skin!

what appologize? are you mad I do not even comunicate with lower beings, let alone to appologize to them.

aufwiedersehen BorderReiver, from now on I do not speak to you anymore

[Blythy]

You can't on an oval.

It isn't a problem because of water levels.

Indycars don't race on ovals in the wet either.

They can, and do, with the right setups and tires and a host of other modifications for the surface.

have you ever thought of elaborating on your posts to offer a little bit of a contribution? Not some vague mystical crap that puts other people down.

According to wiki, the forces that the tyre would undergo in a wet race on an oval would wear the rubber down too fast.

[babe]

what appologize? are you mad I do not even comunicate with lower beings, let alone to appologize to them.

aufwiedersehen BorderReiver, from now on I do not speak to you anymore

Sucks to be wrong doesn't it?

The facts have been laid out before you. You were ridiculously in error, you've been corrected by people who know better.

If you refuse to be educated you'll just go on and on making a fool out of yourself. But hey-ho, that's not my problem is it?

There are several very good reasons that series don't run on paved ovals, the question of uneven tyre wear being chief among them. If you're too dumb to work out what that means in practice . . . well . . .

Yours sincerely

A lesser being who has run on both paved and shale ovals.

[The Ragged Edge]

Also don't forget the spotters. Neither NASCAR nor Indycar races on ovals when the spotters cannot see what's happening. This applies to fog. And it certainly would apply to the spray caused by the 43 cars running in the rain. It would just be very dangerous to run under such conditions. There's no point to do it really. They don't claim to be the best skilled drivers on the planet. Nothing to prove there.

Rain/mudguards and windscreenwipers will do the job. Touring cars and rally cars have this facility. Heck, 99% of roadcars have this as well. When its raining on the M1, I slow down my speed. All types of racing in the wet does the same. Nascar should at least have racing in the wet on road courses as a policy and evolve from there. Nascar could easily do wet oval testing and see how that goes.

[Imperial]

completely wrong, the pace would drop, but for sure there would be some guys who will explore the limits

"Completely wrong"? About what? That people would prefer to see a rip-roaring 200mph+ race than a delicate acceleration halfway along a straight to 80mph before delicately braking from halfway along a straight to get round the next corner without continuing headfirst into the wall? Utter rubbish.

Why do people watch NASCAR if not to see high-speed racing on ovals? It's not F1 with it's unending downforce pinning the cars to the track even in the wet. NASCAR's would be positively crawling around at snails pace, which would be about as exciting as...well, as a NASCAR crawling around an oval circuit at a snails pace.

As I said it's not if they could, it's if they should.

[babe]

Rain/mudguards and windscreenwipers will do the job. Touring cars and rally cars have this facility. Heck, 99% of roadcars have this as well. When its raining on the M1, I slow down my speed. All types of racing in the wet does the same. Nascar should at least have racing in the wet on road courses as a policy and evolve from there. Nascar could easily do wet oval testing and see how that goes.

They've done it (fairly recently too) the tyres shred themselves to buggery and back in a few corners.

Go and look it up.

[brabhamBT19]

"Completely wrong"? About what? That people would prefer to see a rip-roaring 200mph+ race than a delicate acceleration halfway along a straight to 80mph before delicately braking from halfway along a straight to get round the next corner without continuing headfirst into the wall? Utter rubbish.

Why do people watch NASCAR if not to see high-speed racing on ovals? It's not F1 with it's unending downforce pinning the cars to the track even in the wet. NASCAR's would be positively crawling around at snails pace, which would be about as exciting as...well, as a NASCAR crawling around an oval circuit at a snails pace.

As I said it's not if they could, it's if they should.

yes it would be exciting , because they would pass eachother, than the pace wil start to gradually rise untill they start so lose grip, then the pace would go down again, then someone would spead up again... I would be nailbiting.

[Gilles4Ever]

People, lay off the personal attacks and keep it civil!

[Imperial]

yes it would be exciting , because they would pass eachother, than the pace wil start to gradually rise untill they start so lose grip, then the pace would go down again, then someone would spead up again... I would be nailbiting.

So they should just race on road courses every weekend then, as the above description is essentially what happens in a road course race.

Here's me thinking they race on ovals due to the unique racing properties of racing on an oval.

Edited by Imperial, 03 June 2009 - 13:14.

[brabhamBT19]

So they should just race on road courses every weekend then, as the above description is essentially what happens in a road course race.

Here's me thinking they race on ovals due to the unique racing properties of racing on an oval.

oval?

what is oval? take nazareth for instance, isnt/wasnt it more like roadcourse with only left turns, and then you have Daytona, completely opposite. On Daytona it would be hard to race in wet, but in Nazareth, I do not see a reason why not (apart from being demolished)

[Hippo]

Rain/mudguards and windscreenwipers will do the job.

No they wouldn't. There's still spray albeit less. The spotters need to be able to see every car all the time. This is just not possible in rain or fog, especially for large ovals. Do you remember what happened to Zanardi? This could happen every second if the spotters were unable to warn their drivers about spinning/crashing/creeping opponents. There's just nothing to be gained from running under such conditions except for some peoples lust for carnage being satisfied.

[The Ragged Edge]

They've done it (fairly recently too) the tyres shred themselves to buggery and back in a few corners.

Go and look it up.

Just like the tyres Goodyear recently provided lasting only a handful of laps in the dry? Thats no excuse. Goodyear just need to go back to the drawing board and develop a better wet tyre. They could even provide a intermediate tyre. I would even accept if it was Nascars call to say whether it is too early to go on to inters or full slicks. But not racing in the wet is a joke. It has nothing to do with tyre loads and forces, these can be engineered into the tyre.

No they wouldn't. There's still spray albeit less. The spotters need to be able to see every car all the time. This is just not possible in rain or fog, especially for large ovals. Do you remember what happened to Zanardi? This could happen every second if the spotters were unable to warn their drivers about spinning/crashing/creeping opponents. There's just nothing to be gained from running under such conditions except for some peoples lust for carnage being satisfied.

Bringing up Zanardi is low and pandering to emotion instead of facts. The way Nascars are built today, it is unlikely for any driver to lose their legs. Motorsports and racing is a dangerous profession and the Zanardi incident had several factors why he lost his legs. I've seen many a great DTM race in the wet. Like I said, they should at least race in the wet on road courses. Would you object to that?

Edited by The Ragged Edge, 03 June 2009 - 13:35.

[Broadway]

I don't think that Ross has to justify himself when the standard of debate on the subject shows that most people in this thread are ignoramus's on the subject.

I mean we've had everything from "They're scared!" to "the water runs down the oval to the bottom" (something so laughably stupid I'd be ashamed if my three year old child voiced the opinion).

Why bother engaging with people as dumb as that? There are concrete and scientific reasons why racing in the wet on paved ovals is not only extremely dangerous but simply outwith the capabilities of cars that are normally designed to run on them in the dry. They've been explained now, though I suspect it'll make little difference to the oval racing morons around here who don't actually know the first thing about the wing of the sport they're bashing.

It's sad, but there it is.

If people are dumb, they will not be less dumb if people just call them dumb for the pleasure of calling someone dumb. If it is a standard debate, it is usually because the issue is not self explanatory. I did not know the reasons why they do not race in wet, but I guess the tyre wear issue is a pretty reasonable explanation. Spotter is an issue as well, but there is a difference between damp/wet/really_wet, so "damp" should not be a problem. And of course the speeds go down, so 180 into the wall in dry would then be <180 in wet.

[Imperial]

oval?

what is oval? take nazareth for instance, isnt/wasnt it more like roadcourse with only left turns, and then you have Daytona, completely opposite. On Daytona it would be hard to race in wet, but in Nazareth, I do not see a reason why not (apart from being demolished)

Oval, SuperSpeedway, Bullring... You can philosophise about them and their designations all day, but they all have only left turns and they are all intended to be raced on very fast. None of them are shaped like a square, which they may as well be if we expect races to be run on them in the rain.

[Rob]

None of them are shaped like a square, which they may as well be if we expect races to be run on them in the rain.

Hate to pick up on technicalities, but I love trivia so I will anyway.

Flemington Speedway is (was?) square shaped. I've got a hunch it might have been demolished though.

[Imperial]

Hate to pick up on technicalities, but I love trivia so I will anyway.

Flemington Speedway is (was?) square shaped. I've got a hunch it might have been demolished though.

No, please do pick up stuff like this, I never knew about that track. The track looks incredible/hilarious/bewildering all at once!

Having said that, the beloved Wikipedia entry for it does state "The higher speeds led to "a series of horrible crashes," leaving drivers, such as future NASCAR Nextel Cup team owner Ray Evernham, severely injured." so hardly the place to be running in the wet of course, same of course goes for all other ovals.

[benn5325]

Why would you even want to watch nascar race on the wet, it would be soooooooo boring.
Slow speeds, no bumping. I would be like watching floats at a carnival.
Maybe the 2 road races they do each year, yes. But ovals.....

I suppose the next thread will be. Should F1 race on ovals

Edited by benn5325, 03 June 2009 - 13:47.

[Broadway]

Of course, the real problem, more serious than the tire wear, is the unpredictability when it rains. On a road coarse you have runoffs and there is also bigger distances between the cars, so if someone is a bit uncertain, there is a possibility for him to brake a bit earlier. If he misjudges the grip in the other direction, there is a gravel trap. On a oval, if the rain catches on, everybody must basically adjust their speed in synch because if the driver approaching the corner first is braking more than the others, everyone will need to change lines and, well, there is no grip for that. Mayhem. One could argue that the same applies in for instance Monaco, and it does, but even in a very tight race, the cars are spread out a lot more than on a oval.

[Slowinfastout]

On ovals? Forget it, insane.

Apart from that, sure.

[jeze]

I want more road courses! At least four of them, and one in da Chase man! I think Cleveland and Montréal would be awesome venues for the Sprint Cup, and Road America could work as well!

[Imperial]

Of course, the real problem, more serious than the tire wear, is the unpredictability when it rains.

Honestly, how many people on this forum are fans of snail-races?

The real problem is surely how slow the cars would be travelling, out of necessity. Granted the cars don't have to be doing 800mph in the dry, but I'm amazed that the obvious slow speeds in the wet on ovals seems to be the least of concerns for many in this thread.

[Broadway]

Honestly, how many people on this forum are fans of snail-races?

The real problem is surely how slow the cars would be travelling, out of necessity. Granted the cars don't have to be doing 800mph in the dry, but I'm amazed that the obvious slow speeds in the wet on ovals seems to be the least of concerns for many in this thread.

Depends on how wet it is obviously. But regardless of how wet or how dry it is, the perception of speed is depending on how close to the limit the car is going. Compare the safety car in a F1 race with the F1 cars for instance.

[HoldenRT]

I suppose the next thread will be. Should F1 race on ovals

Yes, but only one or two races per season. I'd like to see cars and teams tested in as many ways as possible. It's sad that Imola has gone because it was a unique challenge that is now gone.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Imola wasn't particular for setup or design.