How would onboard be awesome? showing a huge cloud of mist with no visability? How would it be good racing? No braking points, no visability, no spectators... Going along in control of your car till bam, you hit a car you couldn't see... Sounds fun.

Its a stupid idea and you understand that. You just find enjoyment out of making arguments for the sake of it, so be it.

Onboard - watching the driver inputs.

Good racing = low grip, so everyone will be passing even more than normal.
All other racing series cope with low vis, so braking points (not that there are many) won't be a problem.
Visibility - I'm sure the drivers would cope. They can go slower!
Spectators - maybe they'd love it. You can see stuff in the wet. They were running some cars on Rockingham oval in the wet (the lower powered series went out to dry the line for the faster stuff).
They don't need to see the crashes ahead - they have flags, pitboards, spotters, radios. I'm sure all they have to do is say 'wreck at T2' and everyone will get by. They (the drivers) have more external information than any other race series, so it's not as though they'll be short of info.

I'm not making an argument for the sake of it. I genuinely cannot see a reason why supposedly world class drivers can't/won't/don't race in the wet.

Ha, you really believe that?

You ever seen a crash on an oval? Cars and parts everywhere. "Wreck in T2" doesn't exactly suffice.

You're talking about an amatuer series on an amatuer track.

You're expectations in terms of spectating (as a racing driver, a technically minded individual, and as a European) are fundementally different than that of the NASCAR/IRL fans in America. As you are totally oblivious to this, you can justify saying that slow cars at Rockingham ovals can do it, why can't 800hp stock cars.

Yes I have seen a crash on an oval. Lots. It seems to be why people watch it (partly).

Okay, so maybe more info on the radio than that, but you got the idea. The spotter or race manager can always give more info. Radio interference doesn't appear to be a problem most of the time.

My comparison with Rockingham was just an aside. The V8 pickups that did run on the damp over are definetely less powerful, but the point still stands. They don't have to use all 800hp! They all have four wheels and a throttle.

I admit I might have a different viewpoint from your average NASCAR fan, but that's because I have more human genetic code than your average NASCAR fan It still stikes me as completely stupid they don't even run in the damp if they can get away with it!

Quote from tristancliffe :

I admit I might have a different viewpoint from your average NASCAR fan, but that's because I have more human genetic code than your average NASCAR fan It still stikes me as completely stupid they don't even run in the damp if they can get away with it!

Mindless trolling. Despite all preconceived stereotyping, survey's taken in the mid-late 90's showed the percentage of NASCAR fans with an up-todate PC and internet connection was roughly 3 times that of our national average.

Your ridiculous claims and arguments only further prove how you simply don't understand it, and never will.

There is nothing to prove by racing round an oval in the wet. Oval racing is about the side-by-side battling and the spectacle. There is no need to needlessly endanger man or machine in what would probably end up just being a who is luckiest competition (think CTRA SS1 on FE Club with full field of mixed talent).

Why don't top fuel dragsters race in the rain? They aren't made for it and it serves no purpose.

Because Top-Fuel is ALL about traction and power.

NASCAR and other stock car series, like many things in the US, is all about entertainment and the spectators. If the spectators can't see, and they have to sit in the rain in soaking wet clothes, it doesn't sell tickets and that isn't good. End of discussion.

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Pansies is correct, end of discussion.

Quote from Blackout :

NASCAR and other stock car series, like many things in the US, is all about entertainment and the spectators. If the spectators can't see, and they have to sit in the rain in soaking wet clothes, it doesn't sell tickets and that isn't good. End of discussion.

Accurate observation, except the key attraction is the interaction between the divers and cars (the track is largely incidental). For the most part, road course racing (what Europeans have been raised on), has been the interaction between the driver, car, and the track (think Monaco, Nordschleif).

NASCAR is hugely successful. They have a winning formula, and they don't need to change it.

Agreed with lizard, let this thread RIP.

Quote from richy :

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Pansies is correct, end of discussion.

And you're basing this one what?

This is what I'm talking about. -_-

Quote from Lizard :

I see we cant have a effective discussion without these insults. You know what? This discussion is over. Please lock the thread admins.

I cant go on ONE FRICKING day without some ignorant idiot or hardcore F1 fan dish out unprovoked hurtful insults about oval racers in general.

I assumed that people here can be mature. But I guess I was wrong.

THAT'S ENOUGH. I'M SORRY I STARTED THIS GODFORSAKEN THREAD.

For the record, I didn't say that there was anything wrong with having it all about entertainment. Can't imagine the noise of 40 V8 engines screaming non stop, must be awesome.

Hahah I love the old oval vs real racing debate. I;m not going to join in because i don' thave the time or will to type all of my arguments, I'll just say this.

Things like F1, rally, Group A etc, i think people watch them because they are admiring the skill of the drivers for the most part.

Whearas oval racing, well, umm i dont know, i guess they have good crashes?

Quote from Stone in Focus :

Hahah I love the old oval vs real racing debate. I;m not going to join in because i don' thave the time or will to type all of my arguments, I'll just say this.

Things like F1, rally, Group A etc, i think people watch them because they are admiring the skill of the drivers for the most part.

Whearas oval racing, well, umm i dont know, i guess they have good crashes?

People watch ovals for the competition. You have to admit that competition on ovals are normally more compact and exciting then a road course. I mean on F1 only 2-3 cars have a chance to win. On an oval 5-10 (depending on the track and race) have a chance because the field is so compact together.

Why do I always repeat myself. Ovals does not equal great skill OVALS EQUAL GREAT COMPETITION. Goddammit get that through ur thick heads. Just because a discipline doesn't require as much skill as another doesn't mean that it'll have less competition or excitement. In fact in the case of ovals, the racing is more intense.

A drag race fan will have a similar argument.

I'm so sick of you close minded people -_-

What competition?

Dont they just let people pass up the inside and then spin the leader out in the final corner?

/snicker

Quote from richy :

What competition?

Dont they just let people pass up the inside and then spin the leader out in the final corner?

/snicker

Wow that's one of the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. Bashing something you have no knowledge of......nice

Dont get me started on american football !

/doublesnicker

Quote from richy :

Dont get me started on american football !

/doublesnicker

Dont get me started on British football

/snicker

Try and find some videos of actualy ice hockey on the internet. Damn, only fights. /cough cough cough

Quote from richy :

Try and find some videos of actualy ice hockey on the internet. Damn, only fights. /cough cough cough

Wow you shouldn't be talking considering the heavy amount of hooliganish surrounding british football people are more concerned with which "firm" is fighting who then who actually WINS the match /cough cough cough

Yeah english football sucks, I agree. Damn me and my ability to not be blindly patriotic.

This thread is absurd.

Regardless afaik, NASCAR stopped bringing rain tires to the road courses had to do with a problem with the windows fogging, and due to the safety regulations they have and adding a properly functioning a/c or a defogger would cause a bunch of other problems, i.e. lack of an open window and a window net and so forth. So I'd see that as a factor. Pllus it is a spectator sport. they say it themselves, so if no can see, what would be the point? But I'm going to try and do some more research on their reasons why.

Tristan...

Dude, you're dense...really.

High down force IRL cars don't run ovals in the rain, the physics are very different.

Most people who feel the need to knock Nascar, frankly just don't get it, an never will.

F1 is about DRIVING. Most of the time its a few drivers who happen to be hot lapping at the same time. Competition is almost nill ... lets not even bring team order BS into this...

Nascar is about RACING. There is a big difference.

Driving is about the track. Racing is about the drivers. If you cant get that, there's no point arguing.

Rain has been tried, I've watched nascar races in the rain, I've seen them in person. See, on TV, you get the top two series, but there are many levels of nascar, and many more of non-nascar stock car. Rain has been tried over and over, it doesnt work.

Now, I dont think F1 drivers are pansies, I dont have to emasculate people I dont know to make myself feel better. However, I find the idea of driving a computer controlled car with traction control, automatic shifting, auto clutch, high downforce car with extra-wide tires a little less challenging than driving a 4000lb, low tech, half-downforce car with tires half as wide.... Nascar Drivers, F1 Pilots...

Quote from rjm1982 :

Dude, you're dense...really.

In fact he's not tbh, he's a pretty bright fellow. Sometimes those with MMEs (not always) tend to know a thing or two.

Quote :

...silly rant about decoupling the ideas of racing motor vehicles vs driving them

That's pretty absurd. You can't be good at one without the other in the context of motorsports, better re-think that marketing mumbojumbo you've been fed.

Quote :

Rain has been tried over and over, it doesnt work.

Why doesn't it work? Are the cars subject to mechanical failure because of the rain?

Quote :

Now, I dont think F1 drivers are pansies, I dont have to emasculate people I dont know to make myself feel better.

Which is odd, considering that's what you attempted to do below:

Quote :

However, I find the idea of driving a computer controlled car with traction control, automatic shifting, auto clutch, high downforce car with extra-wide tires a little less challenging than driving a 4000lb, low tech, half-downforce car with tires half as wide.... Nascar Drivers, F1 Pilots...

Jeff Gordon had a few other things to say about that when he drove an F1 car the first time. First of all he was not prepared for the forces he was subjected to. Automatic shifting? At least there IS shifting to be done! :rolleyes: Don't even bother trying to compare the precision necessary to guide an F1 car around generally unbanked corners at 4g with coaxing a lumbering cast iron barge around a banked corner over and over again.

FTR I have nothing against stock car racing, I watch it from time to time in fact. It's just that your post contained a touch too much silly for my taste.

Case in point: they could run the cars in the rain if they wanted to, but they don't want to (they being whoever. who cares really.) Whether it's due to perceived safety issues, whining spectators / drivers / officials / groupies, visibility, whatever... it doesn't matter.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Case in point: they could run the cars in the rain if they wanted to, but they don't want to (they being whoever. who cares really.) Whether it's due to perceived safety issues, whining spectators / drivers / officials / groupies, visibility, whatever... it doesn't matter.

OMFG you guys just dont get it

You never saw that 1975 Indy 500 did you -_-

Quote from lizardfolk :

OMFG you guys just dont get it

You never saw that 1975 Indy 500 did you -_-

You remember the 1994 Imola GP, yes? You remember how much driver safety has been improved since then? If not in stock cars, then I find this post from the other thread (SpeedCar) very ironic:

Quote from h3adbang3r :

Since it is an FIA sanctioned series, I seriously doubt ovals will be involved. And from the pictures I saw, they don't look like they have near as many safety features as a NASCAR stock car.