46 replies to this topic

[RealRacing]

I know they are different and sometimes difficult to compare, but let's give it a try.

 

Which racing type do you think demands more driver talent: road racing or oval racing? Who would do better, a driver in a top rated road racing series who competes in ovals or a driver in a top rated oval series competing in a road racing series. Who do you think has a more complete set of driving and racing skills/talent?

 

Didn't put a "not comparable option". Please choose the option you lean towards the most.

 

 

[Ross Stonefeld]

Road Courses are about driving.

 

Ovals are about racing*.

 

 

 

*yes I know it's "easy to overtake" on an oval. Which means it's "easy to overtake" right back. You can make passing easy, you'll never make racing easy.

[sjakie]

I voted road racing. It takes longer to get road racing exactly right, I mean to get to the top. There are more roadracers getting good results on ovals then there are oval drivers who get good results on the road. I haven't looked for the number of drivers of both disciplines who have tried the crossover though

[realracer200]

Obviously road racing.

 

Ovals: car + experience

Road racing: car + experience + talent

[Prost1997T]

Road Courses are about driving.

 

Ovals are about racing*.

 

 

 

*yes I know it's "easy to overtake" on an oval. Which means it's "easy to overtake" right back. You can make passing easy, you'll never make racing easy.

 

I agree (based on recent events in Indycar). I can see that isn't going to be a popular view on a forum largely interested in F1 (which Autosport is).  

[BobbyRicky]

Ovals.

[AustinF1]

I picked Road Courses as there was no "Neither" option, and that's what I gravitate to. BUT ... I grew up a massive NASCAR fan. Later, as I became disenchanted with it and started to gravitate toward open-wheel and more road/street circuit racing, I started to dismiss the talent it takes to race and win consistently on ovals.

 

That was wrong.

 

The more I learn about racing, the more I see that racing on the limit at the top levels is a supreme exercise of driving abilities, whether it be on an oval or at Spa, Suzuka, Monaco, or wherever. I've seen sprint car dirt oval drivers on Saturday nights locally around Austin who possess amazing car control and racecraft. Guys who nobody's ever heard of outside a few tracks around the state. Small ovals produce some of the best racing you'll ever see. Have I gone back to watching racing at big ovals? No, because watching that is still boring to me. But that doesn't mean the drivers aren't incredibly talented and skilled.

 

I would also add that, while I'm really no longer much of an IndyCar fan, I'm simply stunned by the seriously large attachments (cojones, if you will) it must take to strap into an IndyCar and go racing at 220-240 mph on big ovals, esp Indy.

Edited by AustinF1, 04 June 2015 - 16:35.

[hittheapex]

This is not an "either/or" question for me as the techniques required to succeed are quite different, as is the etiquette expected of drivers. You can't just chop across somebody on an oval like on a road course because of what it does to the airflow for the car behind, for example.

 

There are some very talented drivers who can do both very well, such as Montoya but they are obviously very different disciplines. Even Dario Franchitti, who went on to achieve great success, said it too him a long time to get comfortable on the ovals.

Edited by hittheapex, 04 June 2015 - 16:35.

[HeadFirst]

Might as well ask which requires more talent ski racing, or gourmet cooking. I have heard the preaching from the "Only Left Turns" bible for decades, and it never ceases to amuse me. Both ovals and road courses have their particular challenges, in my opinion adding left turns to the mix does not significantly raise the level of difficulty. The two are different, neither one being easy to well.

[MikeV1987]

Two different disciplines so I would go with neither. But if I had to choose I'd go with road racing because - to me anyway - it is more complicated from a driving perspective. No disrespect to oval racers though, i'd say they are the bravest drivers (athletes) on the planet.

[Afterburner]

Two different, incomparable skillsets. Perhaps that should be a poll option?

[Charterhall]

Thy are massively different skill sets and a direct comparison is something only a fool who knows nothing of one or the other would attempt to make. For this reason I will abstain from such a ridiculous vote.

What I will say is that ill informed fans of road racing consistently underestimate the challenge of ovals, the massive changes in car behaviour that result in relatively microscopic changes in such a rarified arena, the challenge of racing in traffic for sustained periods, the strategy and race craft which is exhibited on the fly, and the way an oval and its groove evolves hugely over the course of a race. And then there's constantly balancing a car on the ragged edge to be competitive, the margines for success are finer on ovals and the penalty for mistakes much greater.

Anyone who doesn't even fathom an understanding of the above and doesn't think that, for example, every turn at Indy isn't a huge, different and evolving challenge should seriously think about their credentials as a follower of Motorsport.

Harder or easier than Monaco or Spa? Different certainly and if you can understand the difference you'll appreciate the drivers who can do both much much more.

Edited by Charterhall, 04 June 2015 - 17:23.

[Charterhall]

Oh and if you want to learn how to set up a car effectively as a racing driver, talk to oval racers first. They're better set up engineers by definition. You cannot drive around a handling problem on an oval, it will either make you dog slow or put you in the wall.

[SR388]

I went with ovals because the the competition is so much tighter and you have to be consistently fast on the entire lap to win. On a road course, you can be slow on a third of the track but still put up a fast lap if you're great on the other sectors. In oval racing, if you're slow on any part of the track, you're getting lapped.

[P123]

Both require a different set of skills. On an oval you are always going to be busy racing.

[chunder27]

Pointless poll really as the two are so different

 

For me you need more pure speed and driving ablility to race on proper race tracks

 

But alternately you need more racecraft and guile to race on ovals.

 

That is why guys like Montoya, Ambrose could never adapt as well, they just did not have the same level of guile, feel and racecraft to cut it in NASCAR, put Montoya in a single seater again and hey presto! lol It's hilarious

[ardbeg]

Hmm... piano or saxophone, guitar or xylophone. Violin or ukulele. Which musician is the most talented?

 

I hope nobody answers your poll

Edited by ardbeg, 04 June 2015 - 18:04.

[JHSingo]

Depends which road courses you're talking about. Racing around the Nuburgring, Bathurst, of Macau for instance, are infinitely more challenging than your average F1 tilkedrome.

 

But I think you perhaps have to be a lot braver to succeed on ovals, and a lot more refined on road courses. Apples and oranges, basically.

[SlickMick]

Thy are massively different skill sets and a direct comparison is something only a fool who knows nothing of one or the other would attempt to make. For this reason I will abstain from such a ridiculous vote.

What I will say is that ill informed fans of road racing consistently underestimate the challenge of ovals, the massive changes in car behaviour that result in relatively microscopic changes in such a rarified arena, the challenge of racing in traffic for sustained periods, the strategy and race craft which is exhibited on the fly, and the way an oval and its groove evolves hugely over the course of a race. And then there's constantly balancing a car on the ragged edge to be competitive, the margines for success are finer on ovals and the penalty for mistakes much greater.

Anyone who doesn't even fathom an understanding of the above and doesn't think that, for example, every turn at Indy isn't a huge, different and evolving challenge should seriously think about their credentials as a follower of Motorsport.

Harder or easier than Monaco or Spa? Different certainly and if you can understand the difference you'll appreciate the drivers who can do both much much more.

Methinks the lady(ies) doth protest too much, as I head off to the bunker in my flak jacket.

[AustinF1]

Hmm... piano or saxophone, guitar or xylophone. Violin or ukulele. Which musician is the most talented?

 

I hope nobody answers your poll

Pretty  much.

Can I un-answer?

[RealRacing]

Thy are massively different skill sets and a direct comparison is something only a fool who knows nothing of one or the other would attempt to make. For this reason I will abstain from such a ridiculous vote.

What I will say is that ill informed fans of road racing consistently underestimate the challenge of ovals, the massive changes in car behaviour that result in relatively microscopic changes in such a rarified arena, the challenge of racing in traffic for sustained periods, the strategy and race craft which is exhibited on the fly, and the way an oval and its groove evolves hugely over the course of a race. And then there's constantly balancing a car on the ragged edge to be competitive, the margines for success are finer on ovals and the penalty for mistakes much greater.

Anyone who doesn't even fathom an understanding of the above and doesn't think that, for example, every turn at Indy isn't a huge, different and evolving challenge should seriously think about their credentials as a follower of Motorsport.

Harder or easier than Monaco or Spa? Different certainly and if you can understand the difference you'll appreciate the drivers who can do both much much more.

They are both auto racing and there have been many drivers who have participated in both. And there are drivers and racing experts and aficionados, and people in forums who have an opinion of the merit it takes to compete in both. If you can't manage the humility necessary to respect something that doesn't fit in the narrowness of the flower pot that sits on top of your shoulders, please abstain from contaminating an open discussion with your disgusting petulance. 

[hittheapex]

Pointless poll really as the two are so different

 

For me you need more pure speed and driving ablility to race on proper race tracks

 

But alternately you need more racecraft and guile to race on ovals.

 

That is why guys like Montoya, Ambrose could never adapt as well, they just did not have the same level of guile, feel and racecraft to cut it in NASCAR, put Montoya in a single seater again and hey presto! lol It's hilarious

 

Except that Montoya has done well in ovals, albeit in a single seater. Which highlights another variable in the futile road course vs ovals debate, which is the different types of race car. Heck even an F1 and an Indycar, while similar to the casual observer in how they look, have historically had fundamental differences.

[GTRacer]

I think the problem with this sort of question is that 'ovals' is too broad a term because there are many different types of oval which each require different skill-sets.

 

For example Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Iowa, Pocono & California are all ovals but there all radically different.

 

 

 

I think it was Mario Andretti who was once asked this question & said that Road racing was more physically demanding but ovals were more mentally demanding but that both required equal levels of talent, Just in different areas.

[Myrvold]

For me you need more pure speed and driving ablility to race on proper race tracks

 

But alternately you need more racecraft and guile to race on ovals.

 

That is why guys like Montoya, Ambrose could never adapt as well, they just did not have the same level of guile, feel and racecraft to cut it in NASCAR, put Montoya in a single seater again and hey presto! lol It's hilarious

Uhm, but Montoya is successful on both "proper race tracks" and on ovals... I don't get what you are talking about. Unless you somehow mean that NASCAR = Oval and Open Wheeler = Right&Left?

[HeadFirst]

I think the problem with this sort of question is that 'ovals' is too broad a term because there are many different types of oval which each require different skill-sets.

 

For example Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Iowa, Pocono & California are all ovals but there all radically different.

 

 

 

I think it was Mario Andretti who was once asked this question & said that Road racing was more physically demanding but ovals were more mentally demanding but that both required equal levels of talent, Just in different areas.

 

True, but you could say the same about road courses, and/or about street circuits.

[Bob Riebe]

Of the two road racing pros that hit NASCAR, Ambrose who drove sedans before he hit NASCAR did better than Montoya who won in Formula One.

 

Neither won an oval race.

[jonpollak]

I wonder why this topic was created?

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I initially decided to abstain. But the question asked for "racing", not "driving". And IMO racing is competing against other drivers, not the track.

 

Ovals.

 

For the record, I believe that either discipline has immensely talented drivers, they just have different requirements. Respect for all.

 

[loki]

Bench racing takes the most talent...

[V8 Fireworks]

Rally requires the most driving talent.

 

 

Just mesmerising, Mr Kubica   

 

In circuit racing there is too much chance to practise the circuit over and over again.  Too easy.

 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 05 June 2015 - 05:37.

[dgsg]

WRC of course.

[jonpollak]

Bench racing takes the most talent...

 

Ah.. There's my answer

[aramos]

Rally requires the most driving talent.

 

 

Just mesmerising, Mr Kubica   

 

In circuit racing there is too much chance to practise the circuit over and over again.  Too easy.

 

 

Yep, by a large margin too.

 

Don't get me wrong, all racing requires talent as its always about extracting the maximum from a specific type of machinery in a specific circumstance. You could also argue that track and oval races are far more optimised so finding those final few tenths is harder as everyone is so bloody good. But in terms of your average joe being able to jump in and get anywhere near the limit I would agree that rally seems the most 'other worldish'.

[lbennie]

Too different to compare, Oval racing is all about thinking on your feet, spacial awareness, tactics & racecraft. Road racing is all about technique, feel & outright speed.

Edited by lbennie, 05 June 2015 - 09:37.

[chunder27]

My point was that Montoya can win on ovals in indycar cbut never managed the same level of siccess in NASCAR.

 

Obviously he won on road coarses, as you would expect as did Ambrose, but they were never able to cut it on NASCAR ovals as well.

 

Monaco fine, Monza, Spa all fine, but Darlington or Phoenix!  Lol Amazing how they couldnt not quite transfer that winning mode to stock car oval tracks.

 

I think single seater feel gives you a lot to adapt from F1 or 3000 to Champ or Indy cars.

 

But I do not think anything but years of racing lower formulas can get you the feel for a stock car on an oval.

[travbrad]

Rally requires the most driving talent.

 

 

I don't think you can really compare them, but if I had to pick one I'd pick rallying for sure.  It requires such precision and "feel" for the car on courses where they get very little practice compared to most oval/road racing.  Most of the TV coverage for WRC is pretty bad though, usually just some highlights with very few onboard shots.  When it comes to road racing I think the specific circuit plays a big part in the difficulty too.  Nordschleife is way more difficult than any current F1 circuit, for example.  You make a mistake there and you are in a barrier or even in some trees, and it's an immensely challenging track (so many different kinds of corners and hills/cambers/etc)

 

The type of car makes a big difference too.  A Ford Focus and a F1 car could drive the same road course and it would be a completely different challenge.  That's not even considering motorcycle racing, which is a completely different discipline but those guys have incredible talent and gigantic "attachments".  

Edited by travbrad, 05 June 2015 - 09:50.

[HoldenRT]

Ovals are harder than most people think.  So is rallying.

 

I prefer F1 just because of personal preference.  Though in recent years, it's hard to call them the "best drivers in the world" anymore because they aren't even tested on the same level.

 

The reason why you could say that about F1 (or used to be able to) was because of.. highest revving engines, highest G forces in a corner, huge braking stops and torquey peaky engines that'd be hard to control, especially in the wet.  Some of this is still true, but some of it has gone backwards.  Add to that, the tracks they race on which go more and more towards carparks (which people already discuss on here).  Qualifynig is still pretty intense but in the races, I really find it hard to grade or judge talent down the field because I think that any paydriver could come in and do it, as long as they are willing to follow their pit engineers instructions and manage their race.  Managing a race doesn't require the same talent as driving as fast as you can does.

 

Ovals aren't necessarily easier, just a different discipline.  I don't enjoy them as much so for me personally, they'd be "harder".  A lot of road racing specialists struggle with them because it's a different set of skills and a different feel.  I love tracks like Monaco, Imola, Hungary, Spa and Suzuka so while challenging, it's easier to get passionate about them.  If someone was passionate about ovals, maybe they'd find them easier and find road racing harder.  It doesn't mean they ARE harder though.

 

Just different.

 

I've tried to avoid mentioning the obvious cultural/nationality gap in terms of which side of the world thinks one is better and which one is worse.  Since I am from neither sides of those worlds, my opinion is more balanced.

 

I guess it's most about what you prefer and then your opinion will be shaped from there.  It's hard to find a driver who has excelled at ovals, rallying AND road racing.  If there was, maybe he'd be the one to ask.  Rallying might be the hardest in terms of talent but I love that in road racing you keep doing the same lap over and over and get into a rhythm getting closer and closer to the edge.  Getting "into the groove" over and over again.

[micktosin]

Motor Gp

[LuckyStrike1]

You can't vote one over the other unless you have your head under your arm. 

[RealRacing]

Glad to see there are people with open and active enough minds to be able to approach this subject.

 

As someone said, and it can also be considered a factor, your procedence will somewhat shape your answer here to some degree as well as how entertaining or boring you find the different series. 

 

Also, maybe a poll could be modified to replace racing type with racing series as many seem to believe, for example, that rallying is the one requiring the most talent. Of course everything can relativized to feign intellectual high ground and avoid engaging in discussion, so I guess in that case, many people would also say it's not comparable. I tend to agree that rallying does take more car control and being able to drive under a lot of different circumstances and conditions. In this case, it has also been interesting to see what happened when drivers from different "schools", like Ken Block, Pastrana, Foust were put together in rally-x with drivers such as Loeb, Gronholm and Solberg.

 

As far as the original question, I guess the reduced evidence we have is of road racing drivers, F1 in this case, doing better in series that also contained ovals or were mostly ovals, like Indy, than the other way around. 

[HoldenRT]

Motor Gp

 

Those guys are crazy.

[whitewaterMkII]

no vote for me, but I will ask what ovals you mean...

short, high bank, dirt, paved speedway, dirt midgets, bikes, nascar or indy?

There are a crapload of different types of ovals, with a crapload of different types of vehicles racing them

[Buttoneer]

Road Courses are about driving.
 
Ovals are about racing*.
 
 
 
*yes I know it's "easy to overtake" on an oval. Which means it's "easy to overtake" right back. You can make passing easy, you'll never make racing easy.

I really like this response, from a master of so few words in so many posts. It applies well to the complaints about DRS too.

[vowcartaGP]

hmm, if you said road racing require more talent, I'd also argue oval racing requires more balls. You don't see F1 drivers overtake each other at 200MPH+ in a CORNER. With a wall 3ft away. In a car with no driver aids. And if you're Colombian whilst also In the grass whilst fighting a feisty Australian.

Sarah Fisher has much bigger balls than Michael Schumacher. She even called him a pussy once for not ever wanting to go near an oval.

Edited by vowcartaGP, 05 June 2015 - 18:40.

[tomspar]

I vote both. (tried anyway   )

 

Being able to do well on both shows some real driver talent. (lookin at u Montoya, et. al.)

 

With different skill sets required its hard to say which form of racing comprises a better test of driver talent.

[hittheapex]

I don't think you can really compare them, but if I had to pick one I'd pick rallying for sure.  It requires such precision and "feel" for the car on courses where they get very little practice compared to most oval/road racing.  Most of the TV coverage for WRC is pretty bad though, usually just some highlights with very few onboard shots.  When it comes to road racing I think the specific circuit plays a big part in the difficulty too.  Nordschleife is way more difficult than any current F1 circuit, for example.  You make a mistake there and you are in a barrier or even in some trees, and it's an immensely challenging track (so many different kinds of corners and hills/cambers/etc)

 

The type of car makes a big difference too.  A Ford Focus and a F1 car could drive the same road course and it would be a completely different challenge.  That's not even considering motorcycle racing, which is a completely different discipline but those guys have incredible talent and gigantic "attachments".  

 

Their arms and legs look quite normal to me, smaller in some cases

[HeadFirst]

hmm, if you said road racing require more talent, I'd also argue oval racing requires more balls. You don't see F1 drivers overtake each other at 200MPH+ in a CORNER. With a wall 3ft away. In a car with no driver aids. And if you're Colombian whilst also In the grass whilst fighting a feisty Australian.

Sarah Fisher has much bigger balls than Michael Schumacher. She even called him a pussy once for not ever wanting to go near an oval.

 

I think they are all "without balls" for not freeskiing or racing road bikes.