Professional Racing Drivers In 2-Ton Cars Terrified By Droplets Of Water

Them and baseball players.....

 

The difference between oval track racing and road racing.

When I was working the circuit years ago, I was told that if I stood at one of the turns at Daytona, and as a car came by at speed close enough for me to flick it with my finger, that slight tap would knock the car out of control. Meaning during the race the cars are on the very limit of adhesion.

Even with rain tires, all you would have on an oval is a parade, NASCAR or IRL.

NASCAR did attach wipers and headlights, along with rain tires for an exhibition event in Japan years ago. I believe (?) it was Dale Sr, that won, and most of the drivers enjoyed the experience. But just not practical on ovals.

 

who told you if I may ask? A marshall? I don't really believe that statement whoever told you that if i'm honest... At turkey last year, bruno senna hit a dog at 170mph+ the car stayed in a straight line and didn't spin out of control. Granted, the front suspension was history. That was a dog, approximately 100 lbs. A finger tap is what, 5 lbs of force at best? Wind provides more force.

So basically, all racing series outside USA know that in the rain you have to adapt to the conditions or you will crash.

As tifosiron said, if the cars where equipped with a wiper and some wet tires they can be raced. I recon if you stay high in the oval (ie not as low as possible where the most water will be) a race is possible.

 

"Noone in NASCAR wants to see crashes" LOL!

 

Hysterical article and even funnier responses!

Even in the dry, all NASCAR and IRL have are parades on the ovals already. How would
rain change that (much)?

Further, if this is just related to ovals, then why dosent NASCAR run in the rain on
road courses such as Watkins Glen?

It seems as though a few years ago there was an extended Goodyear/NASCAR test at
Watkins Glen with Mark Martin as the guinea pig. The cars were shod with rain tires and
wipers and it was announced that everyone came away from this test satisfied that it
could be done in a race situation. However, NASCAR is still reluctant even though they
brand their drivers as "World's Best".

Having seen dozens of combined prototype and GT races at Daytona over the years,
there dosent seem to be any problem with four classes of cars (some open cockpit)
running on the banking in pouring down rain (in the dark), what could be more difficult
than that?

Still, the world dosent come to an end and everyone lives to tell the tale.

RM

 

Actually the person that told me was Bobby Allison. Just after he took me for a spin around the Daytona Speedway at speed. Hitting a turkey in a straight line, with hopefully the downforce of the front and rear spoilers doing their job, is not the same as the effect of a corner on a superspeedway at 190+ mph. First, they aren't going straight on that corner, and if you can imagine a car on the limits of adhesion, like in a controlled drift, then you would understand how easy it would be for it to lose control. With rain is possibly rushing down the embankment, so even with rain tires, aquaplaning is a hazard.

At places like Daytona, a car inches from you in a corner can make you lose adhesion without even touching you. In the dry. The draft also works side to side, not just front to back. I've stood at the first turn guardrail of places like Daytona, Atlanta, Michigan, dzens of times and I can see very clearly those cars are on the extreme limit. So I have no doubt that Allison's statement was true.

Even if you put rain tires on a NASCAR car, or an IRL car, on an oval, it would just not make for any form of real racing. First of all, the sustained speeds would still be much higher than you have on a road course in the rain, it just would not make any sense to jeopardize the safety of the drivers for a high speed parade. Secondly after sitting in the rain for many years watching the Daytona 24, even when you race sports cars on a track like Daytona, there isn't much racing going occuring on the banking between cars of the same class, it still happens when braking on the road course, if it were not for the road course portion of Daytona, racing in the rain would also become a parade for those cars.

The point being, it would be just too dangerous to try rain racing on an oval.

Photos of my ride with Allison, and some of the other "best drivers in the world" dealing with rain racing:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Fixed

 

Actually, that's me in the car with the white nose comiing up on the accident in the second photo. Did not qualify well that day, luckily, I missed the mess in front of me.

 

So, we must be led to believe the addage "Rubbin is Racin" is just a clever marketing
gimmick then...

RM

 

Sorry Ron, I've got to throw the BS flag on that one! I don't care who told you, common sense says it can't be true.....

If it were, the slightest gust of wind (which has a lot more force than your finger) would cause 'em to go spinning like tops......

Cheers,
Ian
PS - Gotta love the Onion BTW!

 

If you have never stood at the corner of a NASCAR superspeedway race within inches of the cars, then please, don't tell me what is BS. I have no doubt this is true, I've watched them for years from the guardrail. Unlike any other form of racing, even IRL, these cars are on the edge at every corner on a superspeedway.

Besides, I am going to believe one of the drivers, before I believe anyone that's never been to one of these races.

 

Ron, that does not have anything to do with being at these races or not. The forces (in every direction) on a car at high speed are much bigger than anything you can do with your fingers. If the car is in a state where flicking it with your finger causes the driver to lose control, he already lost control.

 

Thankyou Florian.

Returning to Rons comment:

Totally agreed - I just watched the Michigan race and they are sliding around all over the place. But, the forces involved in making 'em do that are WAY beyond anything you could apply with your fingers.

I don't care how close you've stood to 'em or how many years you've watched 'em for - You are wrong if you believe that the application of such a minimal force could cause 'em to lose control.

Another very bad assumption - I have been to a few of these races, although that, as Florian noted, is irrelevant.....

I'm not saying Mr Allison didn't say this to you, but rather that he said it to illustrate a point, not that it was "true" in terms of the laws of physics.

You may be a great flagger (full respect) but you are showing a very big ignorance of
1 - The laws of physics
2 - Any knowledge of race car dynamics

I'll say again - BS.

Cheers,
Ian

 

With all due respect to Mr. Allison--He is wrong about what he said. And i am actually a better expert on that subject than he would be. Don't believe me? Look at what i do for a living.......

 

OK, I'll bite, Allison does not know what he is talking about.

How does anyone explain that without touching each other, it is possible for a car coming up behind another to actually create an environment by being inches away that causes the first car to lose adhesion and likely lose control?

 

By removing several hundred pounds of downforce.

As to racing with reduced mechanical grip whether caused by a horrifyingly damp track or some other cause such as '80s tyre technology, the answer is to run at the appropriate pace. Not cancel the event.

Anyway. Thanks for the laugh, Rob!

 

I think Ron was speaking theoretically. First, he said, If you could... If I put my finger out in frount of a 200. mp/h car, I would loose my finger and possiblly half my bloody arm. Second, the limit of adheasion means, just that. My Boss built the only Superspeedway in Australia, and standing on the guardrail you get blown on your ass.