NASCAR men earning as well as most F1 drivers

Well said Mike...and no sand anywhere in sight.

 

Clint whatta think of this, remind me of this thread abit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE&feature=related

 

Pretty much how I see it too. You put it in much better words though.

 

That's perfect!! I figured there were others besides me that were finding it amusing.

Although, coming from you I would have thought some sort of brilliant photoshop would have been ideal.

 

Unlike F1 where you draft down the straights, over take a car and then not get passed because if your car is 1 tenth per second a lap faster, the guy behind you can't get by and there's the one pass per race??? You draft in F1 that's how cars catch up on the straights and shoot by....

So NASCAR and F1 passes are the same but it happens 40 times more in NASCAR, got it. Only on the 2 biggest tracks, is there no braking so on smaller/ tighter ovals and the road courses there is passing under braking sooo I again don't see your point. You're splitting hairs.

 

I think a lot of you would be surprised on just how difficult it is to drive a NASCAR. Take the Richard Petty Experience and see how easy you think it is to drive in a controlled environmental at 150mph on a banked oval...and then imagine doing the same at 200mph with 40 cars trying to pass you... http://www.1800bepetty.com/Experience/Itinerary.aspx

 

Actually I have done just that (as pointed out below). It wasn' that hard. But the car felt very loose and it would take me a while to feel comfortable enough to reach 200mph.

As Mike so eloqunently pointed out, it is a task that requires quite some skill and chutzpah. But it doesn't compare to what's required to drive a F1 at speed.

 

I've done the Petty experience as well as a couple of schools. It is certainly not easy, but it is also not "hard". It takes gigantic balls of steel, but it is something that can be learned and adjusted to quite quickly. If you took someone who has never been in a car before and took them up to 100mph in a convertible, that would be really scary too... but after a few weeks as a high-speed test driver for Ferrari, I bet a 100mph highway jaunt wouldn't even raise the heartbeat.

I've also done a few racing schools in other cars, formula cars included, and I've raced competitively in open wheel formula cars. It's every bit as hair raising, but MUCH harder to master and become good at. I find that high speed on an oval is like going fast on the highway... after a while you get accustomed to the speed and the relative distance between the cars and the relative movements is what matters. The fact that you're zipping along at 200mph isn't scary because you're relatively close in speed to everyone else. On the other hand, I've never felt 'comfortable' in an open wheel car on a road course.

I don't care how many laps you do at Road Atlanta, coming into the last turn scares the crap out of you every time, and it requires a lot of skill to put the car through each lap, again and again, at top speed.

Huge difference in skill requirements. No different in "how much balls does it take" requirements.

My .02

 

A limited skill set... like driving. In F1 you accelerate, shift, brake, turn through corners, pass, defend, pit, the same can be said for most types of racing. As for your drafting reference, that goes for any high speed series. If you choose not to draft in F1, you rely on the tiny amount of HP difference between the cars and wouldn't get close enough to pass because the first driver through the turn hits the throttle first and pulls away.

In NASCAR driving in the big pack, you have to know and judge how not to get shuffled back 20 positions and how to pass in a crowd, you can't just pull out and pass at any given time.

So negotiating turns in F1 must be fairly easy. Both series turn corners as quickly as possible so this makes them on equal footing in the corners then I guess.

You just listed everything a NASCAR driver does and list "lots and lots of other things" like what? Pitting? NASCAR driver pit a lot more often than F1 drivers with a lot more cars on pit road, so I guess it takes more skill to pit in NASCAR. As for

Every time a NASCAR driver pulls away from his pit box he has to launch or risk stalling, they pull away as fast as possible and since they have more pit stops compared to 1,2 or 3 in F1 they "launch" as often as F1 drivers. The fact they have rolling starts means nothing, because the same skill is required whether in the starting grid or pit lane.

If you watched NASCAR you would hear and see {all of the time, every race} drivers do well in the pack and out in front but when they are 3 wide, the car has it's handling go away or vise versa, same as any racing series that has its cars racing for long periods. And that not driver skill like Massa doing poorly in the rain, that's the cars themselves, so NASCAR drivers have to adapt to these things as the race continues, making small adjustments in the pits... just like F1 and tires going away, or tiny winglets being knocked off, rads getting blocked off, fuel loads becoming lighter and heavier. So changed during the race where the driver has to adapt is about the same.

In your eyes that's how it is. There are 4 times as many drivers in NASCAR than F1, so 4 times as many "families" so 4 times as many sons make it big. They also race from nearly the same tiny area, yesterday I learned that there's a 50 miles area in North Carolina that produces 6 billion dollars worth of business a year and that's where most NASCAR "shops" are. Also most of the drivers come from a tight grouping of towns and cities, born and bread to race. The same with Canadian hockey players. Why do you think Canada is number one in international hockey? The US has 10 times as many people, so they should be at least able to be 50/ 50 with Canada, but it's the damn small towns that live the sport all year round that produces 75% of the hockey players that make it big. Same with Nascar. In F1 all drivers come from all different countries, none of them have that mentality. No one country is like a small town and certainly one family in one country can't change that. Those are the stats.

Doesn't seem like it. You sound like the others, very desperate to have F1 on a higher platform than any other racing series and with all of the technology changes in the last few years, the freezes on development all you guys have left to complain about is the "skill" and I haven't seen one difference at all other than the fact F1 cars brake to 1st gear turns and NASCAR's don't.

I've driven stock cars and open wheeled cars, doesn't make me an authority on the best drivers in the sport. And I didn't drive them at 200 mph or with the worlds best surrounding me. I doubt you did either. I don't expect people in Hummers or tractor trailers to know what monster truck driving is like either.

To me that statement disqualifies you from discussion because the same can be said for F1 drivers as well. Who other than racing parents would put their children in a race car and have them compete competitively? Not many at all, the time, expense, danger are all factors and even as adults, who races on the weekend all year round? A tiny percentage of the population that's who. Say what you want but there are many stock car racers that try to get into NASCAR every year and fail, just like F1. We'll see how Scott Speed does, he was good enough for F1 in a poor car, what can he do in a great car in NASCAR.

What's the "extra something"? A feeling? Something you can't put your finger on? Would Schumacher have been a better astronaut than some random guy? Perhaps yes. How did Jimmy Johnson win 3 titles in a row in the last 3 years if NASCAR is so easy and everyone has an equal shot? Why does Harvick seem to shoot from the back of the pack to win more than anyone else? I don't see any reason for it other than they are skilled drivers.

So if Jimmy Johnson was brought up in an F1 family, would be in F1?

 

What's the difference between a NASCAR and F1 car at top speed?

 

Why balls of steel for stock cars but not open wheeled cars?

 

So in the open wheeled car were you passing cars that were pulled over on the track? If the difference of speed between the cars is the factor in what makes driving hard, then I guess series' with different makes and models on the track is the hardest race to be in.

You same few guys are all over the place. Different reasons and arguments that parallel both F1 and NASCAR and when questioned it comes down to "it feels harder", "something special", "it just is" or "I did it for a few weekends here and there and it's hard to go as fast as the pros".

What a load.

I don't doubt driving a NASCAR in a race with everyone else is hard but to say it's so much easier than F1 because you guys took weekend courses or drove in an open wheeled car for a period over a year is foolish, no one here knows what skill level it takes to drive either because no one here has done it. All the stock car weekends and F1 laps around in a 10 year old car with instructors, no real racers on the track, no limits to push because you can't get anywhere near the limit of either car doesn't make you an authority at all. If you found an open wheel car harder to drive than a car with a roof, what proof is that of a drivers skill, a driver{s} you never met driving a car you'll never drive?

I've driven road cars at 180 mph that weren't even race cars, does that mean I'm a gifted driver and can get a seat in NASCAR? Am I an authority on speed and skill?

It's an F1 subsection on a Ferrari board, I'm not surprised at the "wanting / believing" F1 to be the greatest form of motor sport but to bash NASCAR as a way of elevating F1, children do that in elementary school, it's one of the oldest and useless ways of arguing a point.

P.S. As far as the looks of NASCAR being the same, all F1 cars look the same too. None look like Ferrari's or BMW's and it doesn't matter who builds the engines, transmissions and bodies they're all built on the F1 spec sheets with only tiny variations... just like NASCAR.

 

And what exactly makes you an authority?

 

I give up. Obviously only guys who are to good for F1 end up driving in NASCAR. bye.

 

I'm not, everything is hearsay and some of the guys try to come off as the people "in the know" because they drove around a few tracks in cars that don't represent the cars we're talking about, at speeds and in situations that don't compare to high levels of competition which gives them exactly no grounds to try and "get inside" the minds of people they don't know doing something they don't do. I mentioned a few pointers about NASCAR that parallel F1 and the bashing hits high gear, stereotypes etc. Then I compare what is posted to F1 and NASCAR and then the "feeling", "extra special skills" "I've done a weekend with whoever" posts come out. No one can admit, concede or even think that the sports are parallel because??? They want F1 to be superior. Some of you have used the word" laughable", now I'll use it, some comments in the posts here are ridiculous in their attempts to verify F1 as some form of elite motor sport and that truly is laughable.

What's the big deal about F1? The glamor, the location of events, the models, the??? None of that has the first thing to do with any sort of skill, it's a show. NASCAR has a different show, a show with less lights and fewer stars in attendance and I'm fairly sure that's where this inexplicable love for F1 comes in. It seems like a high rollers club with all the trimmings and people love to be famous. It all ties in. If F1 didn't put on the show it does, a lot less people would be in love with it.

When it comes down to the racers, every year there's a guy who has his head called for by the fans and drivers because he's "a danger", every year there are a couple of new guys racing for the worst teams because they buy seats instead of qualifying for the seat on talent. Drivers who have their licenses taken away for driving recklessly should not be in F1 but skill isn't the only way to grab a seat and that's laughable too.

We'll see how Scott Speed does as he was in a fair car in F1 and now {as you guys point out} he's in a championship quality car. You guys also pointed out that in F1 with rain, crashes etc that anyone can win a single race, we'll see how many Scott Speed can win in a "much easier" league. *rolls eyes*

 

Exactly!

You point out to me what the different skill sets are. They drive different cars but at very high speeds, through turns, brake, shift, pit, launch, adjust to the changing cars over a race.

"Give up" just like the other couple of guys that listed a whole bunch of "facts" about NASCAR only to be shown incorrect and now have "left" the discussion?

I would absolutely be in love with F1 as an entertaining source for racing "IF" they could actually pass more than a couple of times a race, the rest of the problems like leaving all of the known tracks, all of the cost saving measures and the fixing of the championship could be over looked if it was an actual race with some excitement.

 

Mike, as always you make your point with class as well as clarity (and without the tantrums thrown by others... ). Your posts are much appreciated.

 

Jeff Gordon for the first time ever practiced with a Williiams BMW a few years back and was only 1 second of the pace of the #1 qualifying time of that track. (indy was the track I belive) Now for the first time ever he would have qualified 14th I believe in that race. Sorry but that is saying something about a nascar driver... Getting into a unfamiliar car that is levels above what you race and still able to qualify it 14th on the first day of testing amongst some of the, what you say the best drivers in the world, is saying something. Imagine if he had an entire off season to test.

 

Or his whole life time like F1 drivers.

 

The gordononline site puts it a little differently stating that he was 6.5 seconds off the pole of the previous year's F1 race and 3.5 off the slowest car in that field. Nascar reported him as 1.3 seconds off Montoya's best in the same car on the same day (on a track he'd never driven).

 

That information is false . Montoya has raced that track plenty of times in a f1 car and in fact placed 4th in 2002 on that track. Im not sticking up for Gordon by any means but that is not accurate. Plus if Gordon was only 1.3 behind Montoya then Montoya's time would have placed him dead last in qualifying the year before... Definitely not correct considering that whole little stint they were doing was to promote the williams bmw and nascar...

 

Selective reality and memory, common really.

 

I think everyone is guilty of that at one time or another but it's quite common when one is trying to strengthen a weak position.

 

It's not worth it to reply to each of your points because your arguments are fundamentally flawed.

Everything you need to know about the skill of NASCAR drivers can be learned by comparing the driver list of the road course races to the driver list of the oval races. The idea that the teams would swap the drivers out is laughable. It's an admission that they can't hack it on a road course. Some of them stick in the car, and ironically they are usually the guys that do the best. But when the majority of the field are hiring road course drivers, you know they are admitting they don't have the skill to do anything but keep their foot to the floor and drive in a circle.

The idea that there are family success stories in NASCAR because there is a larger pool is silly. There is a large pool of talent in F1 and the simple fact is the kids don't make it because they can't hack it. Talent succeeds in F1... there are crappy drivers paying for rides and there are good drivers making huge sacks of cash for each race. If someone is good, they will get a ride. Look at the kids of Brabham, Fittipaldi, Andretti, Piquet, Senna, Scheckter... none of them have been F1 superstars. They have all had long and illustrious careers and had every door opened to them, yet none of them have made it in F1. Then look at NASCAR families... Petty, Earnhardt, Marlin, Martin, Jarrett, Labonte. The sons can enter the sport and be top level competitors. Do you really think it's because they have the same innate skill as the fathers do? Or is it because there is much less skill involved and what is required can be learned (the latter is true).

As for my experience, it is perfectly relevant. I have been on a banked oval in a stock car at speed in a competitive event (LVMS and Loudon). I have been in open wheel formula cars on a road course at speed in a competitive event (Road Atlanta, NHIS, Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, Road America, Sebring and others) .

IT IS MUCH EASIER TO AND REQUIRES LESS SKILL TO RUN THE STOCK CAR ON THE BANKED OVAL THAN THE OPEN WHEEL CAR ON THE ROAD COURSE. That is my opinion, based on my experience, driving "real" race cars at real speed.

Whether there were other top level drivers on the track is not the issue (and the answer is, there were - even if only a few 'recognized names'). The simple fact is that it is easier to achieve competitive results in the stock car. Why? Because it's just easier to do. It is a hell of a scary ride.. the car moves all over the place and you feel like you could crash into the wall at any second. You become numb to the speed and end up focusing only on the relative differences between the cars. On a road course, that doesn't happen... you have to have your wits about you at every moment and you are constantly "on edge" for every turn.

It's just different. And stock cars on ovals is easier - a lot easier.

Proof:

-Plenty of F1 drivers go to lesser series (including NASCAR). The other way just does not happen, ever.

-NASCAR drivers hire fill-in drivers to run on road courses, because they know they can't hack it. Not all, but many. Series with many road courses and a small # of ovals never have the teams hiring oval-specific drivers. Clearly, ovals are easier to drive than road courses.

-Families can succeed in NASCAR. They cannot in F1. It is statistically impossible that the innate skill necessary to succeed in racing just happens to run in NASCAR but not in F1. The only answer is that it must be easier to succeed in NASCAR. And it is. And that is why father/son teams can be successful in NASCAR but not in F1. Proof - Petty, Earnhardt, etc. F1: Piquet, Senna, Sheckter, Andretti and many more. It is not for lack of opportunity, it is for F1 being a much harder series to succeed in unless you have real inner talent.


Those are indisputable facts. Nobody who has any experience in real racing thinks that NASCAR is on par skill-wise with F1. The suggestion is laughable.

 

A few backmarker teams do bring in "road ringers" for the road courses. The top teams absolutely do not, and yet those normal drivers always seem to win the races. Strange, given your views on them. Tony, Jeff, Kyle and others are great road racers, especially in huge cars with small tires and brakes.

If you doubt that, take a look at endurance racing, and just how many NASCAR drivers are involved with those races.

re: the lineage.....There's a lot of people who can drive race cars. There's not so many that have the money, connections, time and equipment to get good at it. The people coming up in the NASCAR system are quite literally driving Legends or other ministockers at age 8 and earlier. Yes, a name helps. It helps everywhere. But, if you don't have talent, a name isn't going to get you anywhere. Just ask Kerry Earnhardt. Or Kenny "My brother Rusty" Wallace

Oh, and that name thing and F1? Three for ya: Damon Hill, Ralf Schumacher, and Jacques Villeneuve