Re: Oval racing, my point

Hey, Superdave, real sorry for stealing your post, but, well, it's really handy for me. All these ding-a-lings in the Indy newsgroup think that 1) Oval racing is so very difficult, 2) Computer sims are hardly a representation of true oval difficulty, and 3) That since I don't race, I'm not qualified to talk about the matter. All points are bullshit, but your credentials will send them scurrying for another pathetic means of justifying oval racing. By the way, Mario Andretti recently said essentially what you wrote, so you're in good company. In article <0a7v4.232$[email hidden]>, "Superdave" <[email hidden]> wrote: - You have another believer right here. NASCAR is not racing. Watching cars - drive around on an oval seems very monotonous. I cannot see the sport in - this at all. I say put them on a road course and leave them there. Just what - is the sport in " put it to the floor and steer to the left " ? - - And why are they called stock cars? There is nothing stock about a stock - car. I have a lot more respect for Touring Car and Rally Car racers than I - ever will for a NASCAR driver. - - I raced Supersport and Superbike Suzuki GSXR's for several years and road - courses really show skill. NASCAR just seems to be a freight train going - around and around. - - I'll take Schumacher and Colin McCrae over Jeff Gordon anyday. - - Dave Pawlikowski [email hidden] - http://www.cushdrive.com/

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting > the > > temptation to call me names. > > > > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another and > > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about 10 > > of them on ovals, so the thing is : > > > > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval track somewhere > > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. > > > > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the > > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the same texture" > >

************************************************************* "You really should try racing some in your lifetime (and not on your computer ...). You would quickly discover how much easier a road course is than an oval." -Allan Pagan

If you really think oval racing is just "put your foot to the floor and turn left" then you just proved your ignorance to me. The rest of the statements below don't have much in the way of fact either. Only Pagan's quote has any merit. TA Brian P. Sweeney wrote in message ...

Quoted text (20 lines)

>Hey, Superdave, real sorry for stealing your post, but, well, it's really >handy for me. > >All these ding-a-lings in the Indy newsgroup think that 1) Oval racing is >so very difficult, 2) Computer sims are hardly a representation of true >oval difficulty, and 3) That since I don't race, I'm not qualified to talk >about the matter. > >All points are bullshit, but your credentials will send them scurrying for >another pathetic means of justifying oval racing. > >By the way, Mario Andretti recently said essentially what you wrote, so >you're in good company. > >In article <0a7v4.232$[email hidden]>, "Superdave" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >- You have another believer right here. NASCAR is not racing. Watching cars >- drive around on an oval seems very monotonous. I cannot see the sport in >- this at all. I say put them on a road course and leave them there. Just

what

Quoted text (13 lines)

>- is the sport in " put it to the floor and steer to the left " ? >- >- Dave Pawlikowski [email hidden] >- http://www.cushdrive.com/ > > >> >> > First of all thank you for your input and congratulations on resisting >> the >> > temptation to call me names. >> > >> > The point is FOR ME that every oval track looks VERY much like another

and >> > if I remember well you have about 20 races per year in NASACR and about10 >> > of them on ovals, so the thing is : >> > >> > Isn't it a bit the same to watch a nascar race on an oval tracksomewhere >> > and the next oval race 15 days later somewhere else. >> > >> > Please don't tell me too much about "each oval is different because the >> > banking is different or because the tarmac doesn't have the sametexture"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> > > >************************************************************* >"You really should try racing some in your lifetime (and not on your >computer ...). You would quickly discover how much easier a road >course is than an oval." > >-Allan Pagan

[email hidden] wrote: > When was the last time you saw drivers going three and four wide in > the corners at 185+ mph on a road course? Watch the in-car shots of CART guys screaming down Ocean Blvd at 185 + on a narrow course with scant room for error.....it's a whole different racin' deal. What's also interesting and illuminating....watching the Busch cars and Craftsman trucks circle Naz at around 120-125 mph, and comparing that to the Champ cars on the same track 40-50 mph faster, and with no provision for swapping paint and getting away with it....

Mike, 3 wide at 185mph? What bikes? What track? Just curious Jerry "Mike Laskey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LOhw4.1423$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:89rv5i$i7k$[email hidden]... > > When was the last time you saw drivers going three and four wide in > > the corners at 185+ mph on a road course? > > > > Happens at every bike race. > > Mike. > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Ken Plotkin) wrote: > Kind of interesting seeing this discussion touching on arguments about > which kind of driver has to be a better athlete. Wasn't too long ago > that people questioned whether drivers were athletes at all. Nowadays > the good drivers are all in top athletic condition. > > Ken Plotkin Yes, but a librarian could train for the Ironman competition, but it doesn't make library work athletic. You've missed a necessary step.

On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:10:16 GMT, Brian Richardson <[email hidden]> wrote: [snip] >set-up, car control, etc. that oval racing requires....however, road racing >demands additional skills that are never required in oval racing. For example, >do you think Jeff Gordon will ever deal with the sheer braking loads in NASCAR >like Schumie encounters every week in F1? I'm sure that other posters can[snip] Think Schumie will ever have to deal with a 10 car nose-to-tail draft, and figure out who to go with on the last lap? Nothing has the braking loads of an F1 car. But sometimes *not* doing that is a special skill. Back in the 60s, when Denny Hulme went to Indianapolis, one of his problems was using the brakes too much, like on a road course, rather than smoothly easing off the speed entering the corners. Hulme - as skilled a driver as there was in that era - could never master that, so his car owner finally put wheel covers on so the brakes would heat up and fade. The biggest thing about racing in any series is that the fast guys are going as fast as they can, and as close to the edge as they can. Kind of interesting seeing this discussion touching on arguments about which kind of driver has to be a better athlete. Wasn't too long ago that people questioned whether drivers were athletes at all. Nowadays the good drivers are all in top athletic condition. Ken Plotkin

In article <mlgx4.2792$[email hidden]>, "Peter Olivola" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Being out of physical shape also has significant negative impact on > sustained mental focus as the brain becomes starved for oxygen, and > maintaining focus for the entire distance, especially in closely contested > events, is not only better than loosing it, it may be the difference between > crashing and finishing. The amount of oxygen reaching the brain in athletes > is a function of aerobic conditioning. So running an O2 line inside the helmet negates the need for aerobic conditioning? Just curious, ya' know.

Having driven a race car, and played football and run 1/4 mile and rowed and played basketball and racquetball and tennis and baseball and soccer and hockey, I think it reasonable that I would be able to judge the level of athletic effort required relative to each and while not in the league of rowing, racing is north of baseball, football, soccer, tennis, racquetball, and hockey and roughly equivalent to basketball. It requires more endurance than the 440 but not the same momentary effort. Endurance increases in importance with the distance of the race (doh!) but is a factor in anything more than a about a 5 minute sprint. Drivers who are in better shape, all else being equal, will begin to extend a lead or overcome a deficit markedly toward the end of a race. I've tracked my own lap times relative to physical condition thoughout a race and it's very clear that I can turn faster, more consistent laps at the end of a race when I'm in shape than when I'm not. That's no different than the criteria used to judge physical conditioning in all of the sports mentioned. Being out of physical shape also has significant negative impact on sustained mental focus as the brain becomes starved for oxygen, and maintaining focus for the entire distance, especially in closely contested events, is not only better than loosing it, it may be the difference between crashing and finishing. The amount of oxygen reaching the brain in athletes is a function of aerobic conditioning. The level of physical effort is not a road vs. oval issue. I've driven both. With the exception of endurance sports car racing, an oval race of equal distance to a road race produces about the same metabolic effect. I would include one caveat; there is no way to escape the effort on an oval if you expect to be allowed to participate. In road racing it's possible to cruise around without extending much physical effort without drawing the same level of official "attention." How much racing have you done relative to other sports you've participated in, Brian? How much of that was on ovals and how much on road courses? Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Here's what you wrote, Pete: "Brian, you're the one who's missed a > necessary step. You know nothing about what it takes physically to drive > a race car in any form of the sport." > > 1. How do you know this? > > 2. How can you prove it? > > 3. How is it germane to anything being discussed? > > 4. How is what I know about fitness relevant to whether drivers need to be

fit?

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Eh? > > If we're going to "let everyone else here judge for themselves on the > basis of what's been written," as you advise, then all you've written is > an empty insult, completely irrelevant and error-filled. If anyone forms a > judgment on something so vacant, then we need a more enlightened court. > > So, Pete, have at it. Instead of pondering openly about whether I know > anything about the subject, attempt to answer the question. Why must > drivers, necessarily, be fit? Given your dodges, it looks like you're the > one who knows little about the subject.

You are flat wrong, Brian. F1 engines are not torque powered, they're rev powered. There are very severe limits imposed on an engine's ability to breath over a wide rev range. While F1 engines have extended that range they haven't eliminated the limits entirely, and small displacement engines, especially engines with smallish individual cylinder displacements, that are capable of reving beyond 12,000 rpm don't produce high peak torque numbers. The power comes from the equation ft/lbs of torque * rpm = hp. Assume about 800 horsepower and a power peak at 16,000 rpm and do the math compared that same 800 hp at a power peak of 7500 rpm and it's quickly apparent that an F1 engine is torque starved by comparison. Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobs of > torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slow corners.

Actually torque at the crank is not very relevant, torque at the wheels is though, so producing less torque at a higher rpm is equivalent to more torque at less rpm's. And as you pointed out, peak torque figures are pretty much limited by displacement, it's the revs that detemine what power you get. -Bj�rn "Peter Olivola" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:ftgx4.2802$[email hidden]... > You are flat wrong, Brian. F1 engines are not torque powered, they're rev > powered. There are very severe limits imposed on an engine's ability to > breath over a wide rev range. While F1 engines have extended that range > they haven't eliminated the limits entirely, and small displacementengines, > especially engines with smallish individual cylinder displacements, thatare > capable of reving beyond 12,000 rpm don't produce high peak torquenumbers. > The power comes from the equation ft/lbs of torque * rpm = hp. Assumeabout > 800 horsepower and a power peak at 16,000 rpm and do the math comparedthat > same 800 hp at a power peak of 7500 rpm and it's quickly apparent that anF1 > engine is torque starved by comparison. > > Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobsof > > torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slowcorners. > > >

But connect it to a F1 gearbox and it will pull your hair off. -Bj�rn "David" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:01bf8860$5e9c4200$55d4fc3f@packardbell... > > He is right, at 16,000 rpms the F 1 motor won'thave enough torque to pull > your hat off. > > Dave >

In article <8a5853$bjn$[email hidden]>, "Bj�rn Nyhl�n" <[email hidden]> wrote: > But connect it to a F1 gearbox and it will pull your hair off. And there is the difference between the technical and colloquial definition of torque. One definition is far more relevant to a discussion about driver conditioning.

The amount of oxygen present is irrelevant. It's the ability of the body to take it in, move it around and feed tissue. That's what aerobic conditioning does, it improves the body's ability and efficiency to use oxygen. It is possible to be oxygen starved in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen if your body can't process it fast enough to keep up with your internal use. Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <mlgx4.2792> > So running an O2 line inside the helmet negates the need for aerobic > conditioning? > > Just curious, ya' know.

> Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers? > How many of them are consistant front runners? Enjoy, Pat LaTorres

Good point Peter. Look at an example of two people walking up a flight of stairs, same age/weight etc. A person who does not do some form of cardio will probably perspire more (unless it's me, I sweat when it's 50 degrees outside hehe) and be shorter of breath than a person who does some cardio. Even with the same oxygen availability it all comes down to the body's ability to use it efficiently... Peter Olivola wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > The amount of oxygen present is irrelevant. It's the ability of the body to > take it in, move it around and feed tissue. That's what aerobic > conditioning does, it improves the body's ability and efficiency to use > oxygen. It is possible to be oxygen starved in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen > if your body can't process it fast enough to keep up with your internal use. > > Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <mlgx4.2792> > > So running an O2 line inside the helmet negates the need for aerobic > > conditioning? > > > > Just curious, ya' know.

Yes Brain, but without the prerequisite knowledge of the subject matter at hand, how is one able to recognize said error? Smitty Brian P. Sweeney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <4wXw4.1676$[email hidden]>, "Peter Olivola" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Brian, you're the one who's missed a necessary step. You know nothingabout

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > what it takes physically to drive a race car in any form of the sport. > > > > Yes, but a librarian could train for the Ironman competition, but it > > > doesn't make library work athletic. You've missed a necessary step. > > Thanks for the irrelevancy, Pete, but this is logic, and you know scant > little about it, so I suggest you heed your own advice. > > I simply noted (much to your apparent bewilderment) the post hoc, propter > hoc fallacy, and you don't have to know a damn thing about the subject in > which the fallacy is employed to spot the error. > > Think of it this way. An error in programming code is still an error, > regardless of whether the person reviewing the code knows anything about > word processors, 3D games, or whatever the program might be. > > ********************************************************* > "You really should try racing some in your lifetime (and not on your > computer ...). You would quickly discover how much easier a road > course is than an oval." > > -Allan Pagan >

Hey Speedy, crawl in one of those sprint monsters and see if you feel the same way after 50 laps on a half mile dirt bullring. No cheatin' by sandbaggin' either, push 'er to the limit. I'll guarantee it'll assuredly change your mindset. Smitty Speedy Fast <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 13:14:37 GMT, "Turbo Al" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >If you really think oval racing is just "put your foot to the floor andturn > >left" then you just proved your ignorance to me. The rest of thestatements > > But the fact still remains that road racing is signifcantly more > difficult. I'd hire an British F3 racer over any USAC sprinter any > day! > >