NASCAR could devise a way to put lights on the cars without effecting aerodynamics, I saw an IROC race at the Daytona road course where the cars had lights blended into the aero since the race was scheduled at night time. Yet, the visibilty would still be little to zero in even moderate rain in traffic due to the mist from the high speeds.
NASCAR could devise a way to put lights on the cars without effecting aerodynamics, I saw an IROC race at the Daytona road course where the cars had lights blended into the aero since the race was scheduled at night time. Yet, the visibilty would still be little to zero in even moderate rain in traffic due to the mist from the high speeds.
i think i figured it out
on an oval you obviously have 2 corners ... what makes those different from any other track is that they are almost identical
what we can all agree on is that when driving them there will be suble differences and the exact same line wont work on both of them
the challenge lies with keeping track of which of these identical looking corners your approaching over the course of 500 laps of mind numbing circle driving
on an oval you obviously have 2 corners ... what makes those different from any other track is that they are almost identical
what we can all agree on is that when driving them there will be suble differences and the exact same line wont work on both of them
the challenge lies with keeping track of which of these identical looking corners your approaching over the course of 500 laps of mind numbing circle driving
ha! 2 essentially identical corners my ass. Are all three turns on Kyoto oval identical?
Please continue to make yourself sound like an idiot.
Please continue to make yourself sound like an idiot.
Essentially yes they're all flat with ease in the majority of cars, slight difference in line but nothing major one of them is slightly tighter than the other and the kink isn't really a corner.
Right, different turn banking, radius, ideal line.... Nice.
By your definition, T1 of BWGP is essentially the same as T1 of AS3... Both vaguely go the same direction...
You ever seen Pocano, Indy, Bristol, the Autodromo Nelson Piquet's Emmerson Fittipaldi Speedway (or half a dozen other ovals that couldn't be more unique)?
By your definition, T1 of BWGP is essentially the same as T1 of AS3... Both vaguely go the same direction...
You ever seen Pocano, Indy, Bristol, the Autodromo Nelson Piquet's Emmerson Fittipaldi Speedway (or half a dozen other ovals that couldn't be more unique)?
The first three yes, and they all consist of four or in Ponoco's case possibly five places where you turn left. It can't be that hard because I managed to get pretty good at it without trying
There are small differences but it's all in the detail you know every corner will be a flat or fast banked left hander. If your seriously trying to tell me Daytona or Michigan or Fontana are as different as Blackwood, Spa and the 'ring then I think you need a reality check.
By what measuring stick are you "pretty good"?
Saying 10 out of 42 when qualifying in the OpenSpeedway server (the "superspeedway server") is not really saying u qualified ahead of 30 people. Half the people would just let everyone else qualify (about 20-25 would qualify) and then the ones that started in the back liked the challenge of getting up to the front. Qualifying on a superspeedway to begin with is just too easy (which you said yourself), so why don't you give a lap time of you at Michigan or Atlanta?
Ok
1. You have raced NASCAR or any oval race with 30+ people right? If a oval race goes below 20 then it becomes boring.
2. What is the amount of people in places like Spa and Blackwood? 12? 15? 22 max (i rarely see over 22). And the cars are usually always single file (excluding the beginning few laps).
Try Talladega, and you'll go 3 wide in a 40 pack car CONSTANTLY within 2 seconds of each other.
The problem with you is that you view oval skill by how hard the track is to race. No it's not hard to race on an oval at all. But try race in a giant pack. Because of the ovals immense width and it's "easy" configuration. It brings the pack much closer and thus more competition. You people usually never listen, I'll say it again. it's not that track that makes ovals fun (if i had to race on an oval with a small field i'll be bored too) but it's the MASSIVE COMPETITION you get with a field bigger then what a road course can offer that makes it fun.
Road Courses are hard to race on the track. but the traffic is usually light (NOTHING compared to stock car racing)
I don't see what it matters in a discussion about how pansyish oval drivers/organisers are (and how easy ovals are).
The superspeedway pickup servers were often full. You're right without a nearly full server ovals are tiresome hence why everyone always raced on the same full server and rarely the tracks that actually required some braking.
I've done a 42 car GTP league race round Spa.
Try Eau Rouge three wide, it can be done (just)
That's precisely my point there's very little skill to being quick round an oval but other people seem determined that there is. They'll be asking for a track map next
Cmon Tristan
Love to see you attempt to run within an inch of another car AND stay within a few inches of the wall at 200MPH, then we will see who's a pansy 
NEXTEL only makes about 1500-2000 lbs of downforce, roughly. They don't release numbers anymore. The new COT car is to be said making less downforce than that. Back in the 70's it was the oposite and the cars then were making lift and were literally flying around the track.
Problem with running in the rain is that when they go into a banked corner they could pull as much as 4G's with the combined forces of turning and the banking. Because of that and these cars weight 3400 lbs the sidewalls are very stiff to be able to handle the forces and heat generated while driving constantly at that speed.
Because of the stiff sidwalls the slip angles are extremely low creating tire thats very, grip, no grip and very little in between and not a whole lot of room for error.
How much downforce does an F1 make? I found 1knm which makes about 740 ft-lbs.
Love to see you attempt to run within an inch of another car AND stay within a few inches of the wall at 200MPH, then we will see who's a pansy NEXTEL only makes about 1500-2000 lbs of downforce, roughly. They don't release numbers anymore. The new COT car is to be said making less downforce than that. Back in the 70's it was the oposite and the cars then were making lift and were literally flying around the track.
Problem with running in the rain is that when they go into a banked corner they could pull as much as 4G's with the combined forces of turning and the banking. Because of that and these cars weight 3400 lbs the sidewalls are very stiff to be able to handle the forces and heat generated while driving constantly at that speed.
Because of the stiff sidwalls the slip angles are extremely low creating tire thats very, grip, no grip and very little in between and not a whole lot of room for error.
How much downforce does an F1 make? I found 1knm which makes about 740 ft-lbs.
Measuring downforce in F1 cars as a torque, but as a linear load for NASCAR?
I'd love to have a go. Doesn't scare me, wet or dry, in the slightest.
So a NEXTEL makes 2000lbs of downforce. Plus it weighs 3500lbs. So on a level track it will effectively weighs 5500lbs.
An F1 car makes about 2000lbs of downforce, but only weights about 1200lbs, so on a level tracks effectively weighs 3200lbs.
Banking increases downforce and reduces lateral tyre loads.
A NEXTEL/NASCAR/STOCKCAR should and could run in any weather F1 can run in. The only arguments are that the cars are too fast (why don't they slow down in the wet?), the spectators can't see (oh noes!) and pile-ups might not be visible early enough (flags/spotter/radio/slowing down).
I'm not sure you are at all right on the sidewall/slip angle stuff. I'm not saying they can get away with lots of yaw, but grip, no grip isn't correct at all.
A combined 4G? Is that the vector of 3 axis acceleration? How much braking/accelerating do they pull mid corner? The banking will reduce the lateral acceleration (as reported by a datalogger orientated horizontally when the car is on level ground), but increase the vertical acclerations. If they can make a dry tyre that works at 4g, I'm sure they can make a wet tyre that works at 2 or 3.
I'd love to have a go. Doesn't scare me, wet or dry, in the slightest.
So a NEXTEL makes 2000lbs of downforce. Plus it weighs 3500lbs. So on a level track it will effectively weighs 5500lbs.
An F1 car makes about 2000lbs of downforce, but only weights about 1200lbs, so on a level tracks effectively weighs 3200lbs.
Banking increases downforce and reduces lateral tyre loads.
A NEXTEL/NASCAR/STOCKCAR should and could run in any weather F1 can run in. The only arguments are that the cars are too fast (why don't they slow down in the wet?), the spectators can't see (oh noes!) and pile-ups might not be visible early enough (flags/spotter/radio/slowing down).
I'm not sure you are at all right on the sidewall/slip angle stuff. I'm not saying they can get away with lots of yaw, but grip, no grip isn't correct at all.
A combined 4G? Is that the vector of 3 axis acceleration? How much braking/accelerating do they pull mid corner? The banking will reduce the lateral acceleration (as reported by a datalogger orientated horizontally when the car is on level ground), but increase the vertical acclerations. If they can make a dry tyre that works at 4g, I'm sure they can make a wet tyre that works at 2 or 3.
As usual I "don't" explain very well =P
It's not the lateral forces that are the problem. It's the linear. The sidewalls have to be very stiff to keep the tire from blowing out from the almost 1400 lbs of force generated, on the right side it's probably creeping towards 2000, and they still have problems. Virtually each track they goto has a different type of tire that can handle the different amounts of linear force on the car for each track. I am still not explaining very well, but then I am american that grew up on a farm. Explaining things is something I am just not very good at =P
I had hoped that my numbers were wrong for the F1 car, that didnt sound right at all, was going to say that in my last post but you already posted =P I like those numbers much better. (double checked where I got the number, It wasn't nm, just n, I glanced too quick, the number I also came up with is just for the rear wing assembly...)
It may be possible that the 2000 lbs of downforce is including the weight of the car. I will have to look into it more later, but considering how much air these cars move it's very possible they create that much downforce.
NASCAR currently runs more like 1750 lbs of downforce for super speedways and closer to 2000 for the shorter tracks. The new COT car will have significantly less downforce from what I have been reading.
It's not the lateral forces that are the problem. It's the linear. The sidewalls have to be very stiff to keep the tire from blowing out from the almost 1400 lbs of force generated, on the right side it's probably creeping towards 2000, and they still have problems. Virtually each track they goto has a different type of tire that can handle the different amounts of linear force on the car for each track. I am still not explaining very well, but then I am american that grew up on a farm. Explaining things is something I am just not very good at =P
I had hoped that my numbers were wrong for the F1 car, that didnt sound right at all, was going to say that in my last post but you already posted =P I like those numbers much better. (double checked where I got the number, It wasn't nm, just n, I glanced too quick, the number I also came up with is just for the rear wing assembly...)
It may be possible that the 2000 lbs of downforce is including the weight of the car. I will have to look into it more later, but considering how much air these cars move it's very possible they create that much downforce.
NASCAR currently runs more like 1750 lbs of downforce for super speedways and closer to 2000 for the shorter tracks. The new COT car will have significantly less downforce from what I have been reading.
From Wiki:
"while an F1 car achieves the same downforce:weight ratio of 1:1 at 125 km/h to 130 km/h, and at 190 km/h the ratio is roughly 2:1. Therefore, theoretically, F1 cars can drive upside down from 130 km/h"
They weigh ~1300lbs or so. So, at 190k that's 2600 more lbs = 3900lbs, so at 300km/h it's probably ... significantly more.
This is really starting to get rediculous. Tristian, stop trolling around this thread and do some real research before you make another post about how NASCAR drivers are pansies. Fire up a game like NR2003, and try a few tracks with no assists, you will see how "easy" it is to get around one of those tracks, especially in heavy traffic.
No need to encourage him further.
Although he's egging you guys on a bit (and it's working) he really does have a valid point.
In fact, I'm surprized at the downforce numbers on a stock car - I thought it was a lot less than that, so the argument about the tires clearing water is definitely bogus.
The arguments about safety can be rectified by exactly what he's been saying: reduce speed, problem solved.
I find it hard to argue with the fact that if F1 races run in the wet, there's no reason that stock cars couldn't do it.
Nice avatar BBT
Oh dear this is getting confusing avatar-wise!
I'm not trolling, I just manage to dispell all of your arguments against running in the wet.
Note: I'm NOT talking about really really really heavy rain, just rain.
So... give me some reasons why oval races can't be run on ovals? Too fast isn't one. Too hard isn't one. Too dangerous isn't one. Come on then?
I'm not trolling, I just manage to dispell all of your arguments against running in the wet.
Note: I'm NOT talking about really really really heavy rain, just rain.
So... give me some reasons why oval races can't be run on ovals? Too fast isn't one. Too hard isn't one. Too dangerous isn't one. Come on then?
Likewise!
It'll probably get even more confusing this weekend...
fixed
Ok wait, exactly what are you trying to say? Racing a oval race requires no skill or driving laps on ovals require no skill?
How about that giant mist that might develop (like that Indy 500)
I was suprised myself how much areo downforce a Cup car makes. But then I looked at the shape. the TV does not do these cars justice.
Another thing is that the average banking is what? 20 degrees? Because of the banking there isn't a crown to get the water to go to one side or the other, it all goes down, usually into the pits. When it does come across the track there would be a fairly good bit of water running down, much more than a road course, over double in fact (on average a NASCAR track is much wider than road course)
NASCAR has never run in the rain, I guess why would you want to? It's a spectator racing, you get to see the whole track, all the action and all the cars at once. With rain there would be so much spray nobody would see a thing, including drivers. I know when I went to see you race Tristan I couldn't see where you were until you right across from me on the track, then you were gone again in a wall of spray. The drivers also wouldn't be able to see, so why try racing when it wouldn't be fun for the driver or the spectator?
When NASCAR was formed they decided it was a bad idea to try to race in the rain. I guess you will have to get a time machine to find out exactly why
Another thing is that the average banking is what? 20 degrees? Because of the banking there isn't a crown to get the water to go to one side or the other, it all goes down, usually into the pits. When it does come across the track there would be a fairly good bit of water running down, much more than a road course, over double in fact (on average a NASCAR track is much wider than road course)
NASCAR has never run in the rain, I guess why would you want to? It's a spectator racing, you get to see the whole track, all the action and all the cars at once. With rain there would be so much spray nobody would see a thing, including drivers. I know when I went to see you race Tristan I couldn't see where you were until you right across from me on the track, then you were gone again in a wall of spray. The drivers also wouldn't be able to see, so why try racing when it wouldn't be fun for the driver or the spectator?
When NASCAR was formed they decided it was a bad idea to try to race in the rain. I guess you will have to get a time machine to find out exactly why
So the ONLY reason is the spectators? Well, that's shite frankly. As a spectator I'd love to see them try, even if it was only as they blasted past me. Onboard footage on TV would be awesome.
The drivers don't need 'fun'. They need a challenge, and I'm sure the wet would provide that. They get paid enough!!! Just think of the outrage if the FIA said 'no more F1 in the wet, because the spectators can't see and get a bit damp'!
The drivers don't need 'fun'. They need a challenge, and I'm sure the wet would provide that. They get paid enough!!! Just think of the outrage if the FIA said 'no more F1 in the wet, because the spectators can't see and get a bit damp'!
stock car and rain?
(147 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG