I would've thought an oval would be safer in the wet than most racing circuits, since the banking would help the water run off the corners?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Nope, because it's wet. The limit is lower (and slower). Which is the point I am making. Thanks for assisting with it.

The conclusion - wet accidents generally happen at slower speeds, and wet slides are more easily caught due to the lower speeds. Thus oval races can and should be raced in the wet. Safety a concern (not from lone car accidents but from people running into them)? Then stay at home or make the cars safer!

Brilliant.

Open wheel rain setup - softer spring rates, higher ride heights, more downforce, etc. All things to aide you catching your slides, and slowing your overall car.

Most ovals have banked, high camber turns. This would prohibit softer springs, heigher ride heights. NASCAR has mandated wings/spoilers that are non-adjustable.

In essence a stock car on a wet oval could retain 80% of its speed, and loose 80% of its margin of safety (ability to make corrections).

So you've got 43 3600lb missiles running essentially dry-weather setups, with immensely dimminished braking capabilities, little to no visibility, while still running 170mph all within 5-10 seconds of one another. Sounds reasonable enough, eh tristan?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I would've thought an oval would be safer in the wet than most racing circuits, since the banking would help the water run off the corners?

If it was torrential i imagine great streams of water running down the bankings wouldnt be particularly great.

Quote from srdsprinter :

Brilliant.

Open wheel rain setup - softer spring rates, higher ride heights, more downforce, etc. All things to aide you catching your slides, and slowing your overall car.

Most ovals have banked, high camber turns. This would prohibit softer springs, heigher ride heights. NASCAR has mandated wings/spoilers that are non-adjustable.

In essence a stock car on a wet oval could retain 80% of its speed, and loose 80% of its margin of safety (ability to make corrections).

So you've got 43 3600lb missiles running essentially dry-weather setups, with immensely dimminished braking capabilities, little to no visibility, while still running 170mph all within 5-10 seconds of one another. Sounds reasonable enough, eh tristan?

We don't change spring rates or ride heights for wet. My car's downforce is going to be quite a bit less than a NASCAR I'd imagine. We just soften the roll bars.

On the banked circuits, at a slower (wet) speed you could raise ride heights and soften the springs. You could probably just soften the springs the right amount so that the reduced speed (equating to downforce on the banking) gives the same dynamic ride heights.

In the wet I run 80% of the speed, but with 80% less 'margin for safety' (whatever that really is).

3600lb missiles designed for accidents involving 3600lb missiles. Visibility isn't really that much of a problem (if the drivers are that skilled as people try to make out). Braking not really an issue, as they can always brake earlier. 170mph is fine - if the tyres can clear water at that speed (F1 tyres can, so I imagine NASCAR tyres could if they wanted to).

Yes, that sounds 100% reasonable!!! Cannot see a reason not to.

Quote from tristancliffe :

if the tyres can clear water at that speed (F1 tyres can, so I imagine NASCAR tyres could if they wanted to).

Yes, that sounds 100% reasonable!!! Cannot see a reason not to.

Have you ever considered the actual physics of an F1 car and a stock car of any kind? I believe one reason that F1 rain tyres can clear water so well is because of the immense downforce. NASCAR race cars have FAR less downforce than an F1 car does, even at the 140-210 mph speeds that the stock cars run, especially with the new car. If a NASCAR stock car or even the COT had anything near the range of F1 physics, you wouldn't see the car's tires lifting off the ground in the Watkins Glen or Infineon road races.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I just don't see how oval drivers can call themselves half decent if they refuse to drive in the wet or attempt unbanked/right hand corners.

afaik, "oval drivers" have never been the one's to refuse to drive in the wet. It's the sanctioning bodies that fortunately have more than a modicum of common sense.


How could you possibly say that you have an 80% reduction in margin of safety (your ability to keep the car in control), yet proclaim how much easier it to catch mistakes?

Quote from h3adbang3r :

...

The physics are the same, the forces are worlds different.

Fine - give them some heavily grooved (and CFDd) rain tyres, and tell them to race. They can go as fast or as slow as they want.

But the point is they could quite happily race in the wet on ovals, but choose not to as they are big pansies. Probably the sort of people who wear padding and armour whilst playing football or hockey.

80% reduction in margin for safety was your words. I assume English rain is the same to American rain, and that (roughly speaking) your tarmac is the same as ours. So if you guys lose 80% of your margin for safety then so must I. Doesn't change the fact that slides are easier to catch because of the lower forces/weight transfer/speeds.

Bah, Mario Andretti, Jaques Villenueve, JPM, Alex Zanardi, all pansies compared to Tristan.... well, I actually agree about Jaques being a pansie hippy.


And anyway, its the Sanctioning Bodies, who for some strange reason enjoy having their drivers alive, that prohibit these "pansies" from going out there and killing themselves and all their adoring fans.


Sadly, no you are not loosing the same 80% safety margin. Your car weighs 1400lbs (?) and goes roughly 140mph. A stock car weighs 3600lbs, and goes 200mph... Momentum anyone? A champcar weighs 1500lbs, and goes 240mph. So your margin of safety alone at 70-odd is much higher than a 3600lb car going 170mph in a 40 car draft spanning less than 3 seconds around a turn with 30 degree banking.

Quote from h3adbang3r :

Have you ever considered the actual physics of an F1 car and a stock car of any kind? I believe one reason that F1 rain tyres can clear water so well is because of the immense downforce. NASCAR race cars have FAR less downforce than an F1 car does

Don't forget an F1 car weighs about 1300lbs, not 3600.

The net vertical load on the tires is not that different at high speeds; an F1 car just works better since little of that force is generated by gravity pulling on the car's mass. As you said, it's downforce. A stock car with a little downforce (never check just how much they generate; I didn't think it was much though) is probably looking at somewhere over 4000lbs, and so is an F1 car. The d/f ratio is just far better on the F1 car that's all.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Fine - give them some heavily grooved (and CFDd) rain tyres, and tell them to race. They can go as fast or as slow as they want.

But the point is they could quite happily race in the wet on ovals, but choose not to as they are big pansies. Probably the sort of people who wear padding and armour whilst playing football or hockey.

80% reduction in margin for safety was your words. I assume English rain is the same to American rain, and that (roughly speaking) your tarmac is the same as ours. So if you guys lose 80% of your margin for safety then so must I. Doesn't change the fact that slides are easier to catch because of the lower forces/weight transfer/speeds.

I'm willing to bet that a majority of drivers, NASCAR, F1, Le Mans, w/e are uncomfortable driving on ovals in rain.

Ok. Three things I want to point out

1. Why is this always about NASCAR? I was referring to all oval series which includes Grand Am Koni and IndyCar.

2 A good number of racing death occurred on ovals because of the insanely high speeds. I mean it's basically the centrifuge physics. What would go faster? A car dodging corners and chicanes, or a car going in a oval? Oval because of it's circlish format makes cars go incredibly fast.

Example: NASCAR at Infinion Raceway go around 91 average mph. NASCAR at Daytona the cars go around 181.5 mph. That's Double.

I'm willing to bet that if F1 races on an superspeedway like Talladega, they'd be going atleast 250 mph AVERAGE (F1 bodywork doesn't allow it to go over 250). I'm also willing to bet that F1 drivers would not feel comfortable racing on an oval during a heavy rain.

Do not DO NOT compare ovals to road courses, they are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT styles of racing. It's like comparing F1 to WRC. You cannot view ovals through the eyes of a road course (in this case F1) spectator. Heavy rain WOULD make the track incredibly dangerous. A good part of racing fatalities comes from ovals. Without rain, if someone spins out the tires lock and the speed reduces from 180 to around 120 mph. Still very hard hit. With RAIN, if the rain tires fail you'll hit the wall at 160+ cause the tarmac is slick and wont reduce the speeds. Hitting the wall at that speed, and you'll have a very good chance for that crash to be critical if not fatal

Maybe some of you need to watch my racing fatality movie. There's a lot of oval fatalities that appear casual. People constantly underestimate ovals.

3. Did you see how anxious the drivers were getting to qualify at the two rained out races? Most of them were willing to driver in the race WITH THEIR CURRENT SETUP AND TIRES. NASCAR said no, not the drivers. The drivers are MORE then willing to race...as you say it "in rain and on un-banked right turns". Mainly because many of them came from road course backgrounds. You cannot CANNOT go against NASCAR's wishes. it's like F1 drivers cannot go against FIA's wishes without serious penalties.

Not to be offensive Tristan but seriously, watch a couple of stock car or even Indy races (as well as some of the fatal oval crashes) before you comment

Quote from ajp71 :

With a wet setup single seaters are generally much easier to drive and nearly all the crashes and spins you see in the wet are caused by cars that aren't correctly setup for wet conditions. The limit is a bit watery in the wet because of how the track surface changes dynamically and it requires adaption rather than trying to drive the pre-described line that people gradually learn and develop over years on a bone dry track.

Driving in the wet is a skill that most oval racers won't be at all used to, they expect to brake, change gear, turn in and accelerate at exact points on the track and just aren't going to be able to fathom having change all of those on a lap by lap basis based on the conditions. Regardless of spray and safety issues I just don't think it's part of an oval racers skill set.

You guys tell me not to stereotype and yet YOU stereotype yourselves........I find this very irritating and amusing -_-


You completely took my question out of context. It is my belief that NASCAR went a little far on the rain situation. With the right setup they could have atleast qualified for the two rained out events. But they didn't and I wasn't happy about that.

In a HEAVY rain, I know there's no chance to race a oval without the insane mist or the extreme increase in danger (remember what I said)

I remember watching this on TV, surprised this video has not popped up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKd4A3x4-_I

There is no point joining into this arguement because you can't just change someone's mind when they are "stubborn". But I would like to ask you something tristan, what hand do you write with?

Quote from PMD9409 :

I remember watching this on TV, surprised this video has not popped up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKd4A3x4-_I

There is no point joining into this arguement because you can't just change someone's mind when they are "stubborn". But I would like to ask you something tristan, what hand do you write with?

On top of that look how rain made the 1975 Indy 500 a disaster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T95GgQJnOdM

Quote from PMD9409 :

I remember watching this on TV, surprised this video has not popped up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKd4A3x4-_I

That very nicely illustrates how they all pile into turn 1 flat out just assuming that the track will be how they expect it to be. No racing driver ever sets off from the grid expecting the circuit to be perfect. As has been said before in oval racing threads (by Lizardfolk) oval racers don't expect to have to drive the track, an oval means there is no challenge of driving round the track which means there's more time to race.

I accept that at the super speedways it is far too dangerous to run in the wet but what is wrong with the short tracks? They run very similar tracks on dirt at similar speeds after all.

Quote from ajp71 :

That very nicely illustrates how they all pile into turn 1 flat out just assuming that the track will be how they expect it to be. No racing driver ever sets off from the grid expecting the circuit to be perfect. As has been said before in oval racing threads (by Lizardfolk) oval racers don't expect to have to drive the track, an oval means there is no challenge of driving round the track which means there's more time to race.

I accept that at the super speedways it is far too dangerous to run in the wet but what is wrong with the short tracks? They run very similar tracks on dirt at similar speeds after all.

I love the part where you say that an oval has no challenge, that must be the reason JPM hasn't won an oval race.

On the short track bit. Think of a race where the lap times are less than 22 seconds, now add 43 cars, now add rain, now add how the officials and drivers will see when a car has spun and how the drivers can tell when there is a caution. Oh and I almost forgot, where will the spectators be?

Oh, and please show me a video of the dirt racing you are talking about, I would love to see how much different the cars are.

Quote from PMD9409 :

I love the part where you say that an oval has no challenge, that must be the reason JPM hasn't won an oval race.

On the short track bit. Think of a race where the lap times are less than 22 seconds, now add 43 cars, now add rain, now add how the officials and drivers will see when a car has spun and how the drivers can tell when there is a caution. Oh and I almost forgot, where will the spectators be?

Oh, and please show me a video of the dirt racing you are talking about, I would love to see how much different the cars are.

He said "there's more to race". Which is true. You ask anyone to drive an oval and any guy could do it. However, ask him to drive a oval in a COMPETITIVE lap time is a whole nother story. Ask him to drive a oval with a giant pack of 25+ cars and he'll go home crying

Oval is easy to drive, but RACING on an oval is what requires great skill

Quote from ajp71 :

That very nicely illustrates how they all pile into turn 1 flat out just assuming that the track will be how they expect it to be. No racing driver ever sets off from the grid expecting the circuit to be perfect. As has been said before in oval racing threads (by Lizardfolk) oval racers don't expect to have to drive the track, an oval means there is no challenge of driving round the track which means there's more time to race.

I accept that at the super speedways it is far too dangerous to run in the wet but what is wrong with the short tracks? They run very similar tracks on dirt at similar speeds after all.

And why would they not expect the track to be dry? NASCAR has officials all over the track, and you simply couldn't run in a "centrifuge" on the tires they use with any moisture on the track. Someone in NASCAR wasn't paying attention and it wasn't the drivers. If you raced in a series that does not race in the rain, with officials all over the track, then why would you ever expect a wet racetrack.

Rain and oval racing just don't mix. It's not called racing when cars are just limping around the track hoping not to spin out. What the heck is there worth running on an oval if you can only do 50 mph with 800 horsepower of vintage technology (no flaming on that, because the vintage technology is the whole point of NASCAR, though the league is destroying that also with the COT).

I knew this was coming...

Bah, Mario Andretti, Jaques Villenueve, Alex Zanardi, all pansies...

If it doesn't take any skill race why don't these people have more championships than they do? The margins are different, but it still takes a ton of skill to run at the front.

Quote from srdsprinter :

Bah, Mario Andretti, Jaques Villenueve, JPM, Alex Zanardi, all pansies compared to Tristan.... well, I actually agree about Jaques being a pansie hippy.
And anyway, its the Sanctioning Bodies, who for some strange reason enjoy having their drivers alive, that prohibit these "pansies" from going out there and killing themselves and all their adoring fans.
Sadly, no you are not loosing the same 80% safety margin. Your car weighs 1400lbs (?) and goes roughly 140mph. A stock car weighs 3600lbs, and goes 200mph... Momentum anyone? A champcar weighs 1500lbs, and goes 240mph. So your margin of safety alone at 70-odd is much higher than a 3600lb car going 170mph in a 40 car draft spanning less than 3 seconds around a turn with 30 degree banking.

Quoting four drivers (incl. Jacques) does not a survey make. Regardless of it's the sanctioning bodies or the drivers, I still cannot see a reason why they shouldn't. Ligitation society?
There is no such thing as a 'safety margin' in racing. To be quick you have to be on the limit, which implies that any faster is beyond the limit. Any driver would sell their soul to the devil for more speed/less safety margin (except whining Webber).
My margin for safety at 140mph is arguably less (arguably because I think you're talking tosh) than a stock cars at the same speed, because they have big squashy cars to absorb impacts.

Quote from lizardfolk :

I'm willing to bet that a majority of drivers, NASCAR, F1, Le Mans, w/e are uncomfortable driving on ovals in rain.
Ok. Three things I want to point out
1. Why is this always about NASCAR? I was referring to all oval series which includes Grand Am Koni and IndyCar.
2 A good number of racing death occurred on ovals because of the insanely high speeds. I mean it's basically the centrifuge physics. What would go faster? A car dodging corners and chicanes, or a car going in a oval? Oval because of it's circlish format makes cars go incredibly fast.
Example: NASCAR at Infinion Raceway go around 91 average mph. NASCAR at Daytona the cars go around 181.5 mph. That's Double.
I'm willing to bet that if F1 races on an superspeedway like Talladega, they'd be going atleast 250 mph AVERAGE (F1 bodywork doesn't allow it to go over 250). I'm also willing to bet that F1 drivers would not feel comfortable racing on an oval during a heavy rain.
Do not DO NOT compare ovals to road courses, they are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT styles of racing. It's like comparing F1 to WRC. You cannot view ovals through the eyes of a road course (in this case F1) spectator. Heavy rain WOULD make the track incredibly dangerous. A good part of racing fatalities comes from ovals. Without rain, if someone spins out the tires lock and the speed reduces from 180 to around 120 mph. Still very hard hit. With RAIN, if the rain tires fail you'll hit the wall at 160+ cause the tarmac is slick and wont reduce the speeds. Hitting the wall at that speed, and you'll have a very good chance for that crash to be critical if not fatal
Maybe some of you need to watch my racing fatality movie. There's a lot of oval fatalities that appear casual. People constantly underestimate ovals.
3. Did you see how anxious the drivers were getting to qualify at the two rained out races? Most of them were willing to driver in the race WITH THEIR CURRENT SETUP AND TIRES. NASCAR said no, not the drivers. The drivers are MORE then willing to race...as you say it "in rain and on un-banked right turns". Mainly because many of them came from road course backgrounds. You cannot CANNOT go against NASCAR's wishes. it's like F1 drivers cannot go against FIA's wishes without serious penalties.
Not to be offensive Tristan but seriously, watch a couple of stock car or even Indy races (as well as some of the fatal oval crashes) before you comment
In a HEAVY rain, I know there's no chance to race a oval without the insane mist or the extreme increase in danger (remember what I said)

It's always about NASCAR because that's easier to type than 'oval racing series, including stockcars and openwheelers etc'. I shall try and call them oval cars and oval drivers to differentiate them from proper cars and proper drivers.
The ability for the cars to go fast is not in question. F1 cars can go fast. But when it rains - they slow down! I know that's a difficult concept for an oval driver, but it is possible.
I have watched oval racing, and I have seen your movie thing - I think (iirc) that I was one who stuck up for the principles of showing/making it, but of course you wouldn't remember that.

I'm not saying make them race in HEAVY rain - obviously there is a limit, just like REALLY wet races in F1 get red-flagged. That's just sensible. But a bit of drizzle, or even some standing water is a challenge that needs to be overcome, not hid from in pitlane (see how I spoke oval!? I missed the word 'the' out of the sentence ).

Quote from PMD9409 :

I remember watching this on TV, surprised this video has not popped up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKd4A3x4-_I

There is no point joining into this arguement because you can't just change someone's mind when they are "stubborn". But I would like to ask you something tristan, what hand do you write with?

Both hands. Without looking at the keyboard.

Quote from ajp71 :

That very nicely illustrates how they all pile into turn 1 flat out just assuming that the track will be how they expect it to be. No racing driver ever sets off from the grid expecting the circuit to be perfect. As has been said before in oval racing threads (by Lizardfolk) oval racers don't expect to have to drive the track, an oval means there is no challenge of driving round the track which means there's more time to race.

I accept that at the super speedways it is far too dangerous to run in the wet but what is wrong with the short tracks? They run very similar tracks on dirt at similar speeds after all.

Even the super-speedways should not be cancelled in the event of a bit of moisture in my opinion. The drivers can slow down if they want to, or need to.

Quote from mrodgers :

Rain and oval racing just don't mix. It's not called racing when cars are just limping around the track hoping not to spin out. What the heck is there worth running on an oval if you can only do 50 mph with 800 horsepower of vintage technology (no flaming on that, because the vintage technology is the whole point of NASCAR, though the league is destroying that also with the COT).

Well, people think that racing IMPROVES in circuit racing with a bit of moisture, so I'd bet that (assuming you could force intelligence into the drivers, which would be no mean feat) oval races might get less dull too! 50mph? I think that's a bit of a silly thing to say - the speed would still be in excess of 120mph. And what is the point? Car control. Racecraft. Quick Thinking. Adaption. Reading the Road. All of these would need to be employed big time, which sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Quote from lizardfolk :

He said "there's more to race". Which is true. You ask anyone to drive an oval and any guy could do it. However, ask him to drive a oval in a COMPETITIVE lap time is a whole nother story. Ask him to drive a oval with a giant pack of 25+ cars and he'll go home crying

Doing competitive laptimes on an oval is very easy, in N2003 the front half of the grid was so close you couldn't tell them apart in qualifying, like I said you learnt the turn in, braking, power down and gear shift points and you were within 0.1 second of pole in 5 minutes. Now you go and do that round the 'ring

Quote from mrodgers :

And why would they not expect the track to be dry? NASCAR has officials all over the track, and you simply couldn't run in a "centrifuge" on the tires they use with any moisture on the track. Someone in NASCAR wasn't paying attention and it wasn't the drivers. If you raced in a series that does not race in the rain, with officials all over the track, then why would you ever expect a wet racetrack.

They still have wind, track temperatures, surface and cold tyres to take into account anybody who just piles through T1 like that is an idiot :doh:

For everyone (but JPM) all the wind, track temps, cloud cover, cold tires, ducks, in the world is not going to cause them to make a pile-up like that.

So again, why are they idiots?

-----
I never said it was a survey, I was just making a short list TC:
Tristan > Mario Andretti in manlyness

I don't know about that, but I do have less silly sideburns!

Quote from ajp71 :

Doing competitive laptimes on an oval is very easy, in N2003 the front half of the grid was so close you couldn't tell them apart in qualifying, like I said you learnt the turn in, braking, power down and gear shift points and you were within 0.1 second of pole in 5 minutes. Now you go and do that round the 'ring'

Just curious, you did play that on online right? even if you jack the difficulty all the way up you dont do good online (of course depends on the server) I mean playing with AI is way too easy. Playing online and especially in a popular league (like FSB and ORCA) that's the norm. To get to the top u'll need to do more. (I've always been a midpacker in those leagues and I always drive as hard a possible) My previous teammate can barely qualify.

I dont know, maybe you are a better driver and maybe your a prodigy. But everyone I know people who said ovals are easy, raced on it and couldn't complete a single lap in a pack. In fact a few pros (such as Captain) had to coach some noobs on how to race the oval. They do everything the pros say and they still cant get competitive speeds.

I know many LFS noobs who keep causing a big wrecks cause they cant adapt to the oval format and LFS ovals isn't even hard to race on.

While road courses do require more skill then ovals (obviously) ovals aren't for rejected racers. The FM server constantly portray that. And why are we having another "oval=skill" discussion. There's another thread for this and I'm tired of constantly repeating myself. Maybe what I say doesn't make sense to you. Maybe I'm a retard to you. but that's enough discussion about ovals and the driver's alleged "no skill". I believe there's ample reason why running in a oval with 25+ cars isn't just for anyone (all within the other oval thread).



Tristan, that is one thing I agree with you. Nascar should race if it drizzles. However, the standard for rain racing will be lower then F1 for reasons portrayed above.

I really dont know how it's like in europe, but in America people do not want to see their driviers die or engage in a serious crash. Many race fans in America has a lot of idol worship of many drivers.

Nascar drivers have no say to what the sanctioned body does. What they do is almost completely independent from what the drivers want to do. While the drivers DO want to race in the rain the body does not and there's really nothing the drivers can do about it. (Michael Waltrip hint hint)

The only potential problem I see in oval racing with rain is that it might create a giant mist that'll completely blind you (remember NASCAR has no lights).

Safety is very important in America. If not then NASCAR can easily get sued (and did many times before for fatalites). J.D. McDuffie's wife sued both NASCAR AND Watkins Glen for his fatality (eventhough it was no fault of NASCAR or Watkins Glen). But NASCAR can get serious flak for allowing them to race in the rain. If someone gets hurt as a result of that. A major law suit would ensue.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Both hands. Without looking at the keyboard.

I said writing, not typing. Once again I will ask, what hand do you write with?

Quote from lizardfolk :

Just curious, you did play that on online right? even if you jack the difficulty all the way up you dont do good online (of course depends on the server) I mean playing with AI is way too easy. Playing online and especially in a popular league (like FSB and ORCA) that's the norm. To get to the top u'll need to do more. (I've always been a midpacker in those leagues and I always drive as hard a possible) My previous teammate can barely qualify.

I used to race on the pick up superspeedway (and when they were around, speedway) servers and usually would expect to qualify top 10 out of 42. With everybody on the same set it's just a case of being nice and smooth with the wheel and taking a good line, that's it pop it into fourth hold right foot down and twiddle the steering wheel, not what I'd call skilful.