www.ditl.org

heres my latest in a DITL exclusive confessional. im going to drive 263 miles to meet a girl i met online after chatting for several months. if I never post again you'll know why. haha.

Rochey wrote:

So what you're saying is that NASCAR is the motorsport equivlent of pub kicking-out time.

I'm sorry, but I really must disagree with that statement. Being Irish, I can reliably inform you that pub kicking-out time can be highly amusing to watch (or participate in) if one is either sober enough or drunk enoough.
Cars driving around in circles for long periods of time = more boring than Cricket.

Agreed. (I am mostly Irish, so I can agree w/ that statement. Families derived from Country Coolavin)

MetalHead wrote:heres my latest in a DITL exclusive confessional. im going to drive 263 miles to meet a girl i met online after chatting for several months. if I never post again you'll know why. haha.

Sounds like a plan, that's how my wife and I got together.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:*snip*

So what you're saying is that NASCAR is the motorsport equivlent of pub kicking-out time.

Indeed, the fact that the cars can take so much punishment relative to F1 is evidence that less skill is required. In NaASAR you can throw the thing around however you like and it'll get you to the end. In F1 you've got to be in exactly the right place on every single corner. If you're not, at best you'll have an extremely medicocre race and at worst you won't finish. Overtaking is a similar situation - in NASCAR you just sit behind soemone and let them drag you along in the slipstream. In F1 you have to fight against the reduced grip while still trying to close down your opponent.

Plus, you still haven't responded to the point that NASCAR tracks are glorified roundabouts.

In NASCAR you could throw your weight around, but that won't get the trophy. And there are a lot more ways to 'overtake' someone as you call it. Like in the corners, for example, but riskier since they can barely control the cars as it is. F1 also lacks any strategy, and if you race one road course you've raced them all. F1 could be raced by a trained monkey. And F1 or road races it so rare to see any action period.

me,myself and I wrote:

Rochey wrote:

So what you're saying is that NASCAR is the motorsport equivlent of pub kicking-out time.

I'm sorry, but I really must disagree with that statement. Being Irish, I can reliably inform you that pub kicking-out time can be highly amusing to watch (or participate in) if one is either sober enough or drunk enoough.
Cars driving around in circles for long periods of time = more boring than Cricket.

Agreed. (I am mostly Irish, so I can agree w/ that statement. Families derived from Country Coolavin)

Well, more like a cross between a bar fight and profesional fights. It helps to understand the strategys and physics behind these things. It's not something you can just jump into, usually, kinda like Star Trek.

Blackstar - all the skills you mention about NASCAR will obviously apply in spades to F1 racing. I have no doubt that it takes skill to consistently do well at it; to WATCH, however, it boils down to a three-(or more)hour long left-hand turn.

Not a big fan of auto racing in general, but NASCAR is impossible to watch.

MetalHead wrote:heres my latest in a DITL exclusive confessional. im going to drive 263 miles to meet a girl i met online after chatting for several months. if I never post again you'll know why. haha.

pfft...my girlfriend took a bus over 800 miles to meet me, and I plan on doing the same at the end of the quarter

Mikey wrote:Blackstar - all the skills you mention about NASCAR will obviously apply in spades to F1 racing. I have no doubt that it takes skill to consistently do well at it; to WATCH, however, it boils down to a three-(or more)hour long left-hand turn.

Not a big fan of auto racing in general, but NASCAR is impossible to watch.

pfft...F1 is all about consistancy in every aspect. You watch one road race you've seen them all. NASCAR is much more interesting since no two tracks are the same. And there's a lot more head to head action rather then watching car after car go past one section of the track. Then watch them pass another section of the track. In NASCAR the whole field is involved in the whole race.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Like in the corners, for example, but riskier since they can barely control the cars as it is.

In F1, corners are where you overtake, either directly or getting into position to get through on the next straight. The two favourites are to either outbreak the other bloke, or to wait for him to make a mistake (i.e. missing the apex by a few inches) and charge up the inside. All without shunting your opponent, which would almost certainly put both cars out.

F1 also lacks any strategy, and if you race one road course you've raced them all.

I know this might be a difficult concept for a NASCAR fan like yourself to grasp, but F1 tracks are all different shapes.

As for strategy, it plays a vast part of any race. Do you have a heavy or light fuel load on the grid? A particularly important question if you get through to qually 3, when you're not allowed to adjust your fuel load before the race. How many stops do you have? 3? 2? Just 1? When do you stop? Do you keep going to try and get into the next window or do you get in asap in case there's a safety car?

Am I the only one seeing the irony that Blackstar's biggest point that makes NASCAR so wonderful is that all the tracks are different shapes... All different sizes of oval, and then F1 only has drastically different size and shaped tracks?
He said a bit about that NASCAR drivers must look at all the tyres, the pitting, the fuel levels - erm, well, all that applies to F1, and they have to take real corners, too. The fact NASCAR is confined solely to the USA and F1 is world wide inherantly puts that skill level on a far greater level - F1 has a pool the size of the world's population, including the best US drivers. NASCAR doesn't. And to the point about the guy with the biggest engine in F1 wins... Well... That's funny how Schumacher and Alonso have won when they've had 2, 3, or 4 car makes (ie 4, 6 or 8 drivers) categorically faster than them.

All I have to say about NASCAR is this

its for rednecks with a small world perspective. not to say all its fans are, but many.

I call it

ASSCAR

You can buy a street car that is faster than a NASCAR, things with AMG and M and RS badges come to mind. Nevermind things like Kleemans, BRABUS, etc.

F1 is hundreds of times superior.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

Mikey wrote:Blackstar - all the skills you mention about NASCAR will obviously apply in spades to F1 racing. I have no doubt that it takes skill to consistently do well at it; to WATCH, however, it boils down to a three-(or more)hour long left-hand turn.

Not a big fan of auto racing in general, but NASCAR is impossible to watch.

pfft...F1 is all about consistancy in every aspect. You watch one road race you've seen them all. NASCAR is much more interesting since no two tracks are the same. And there's a lot more head to head action rather then watching car after car go past one section of the track. Then watch them pass another section of the track. In NASCAR the whole field is involved in the whole race.

What a bunch of cr*p, any fool can jump in a NASCAR and drive it, OK they can't win a race or anything, but, it take great skill to get an F1 car to even move of the start line. I've seen a novice attempt to get an F1 car to complete a lap of a track at any speed, with no opposition or other track users. It was almost a full day before he was able to achieve even that.

A lot of NASCAR tracks are the same shape, an oval, whereas there are no two F1 tracks that are the same. Take a look at the Monaco Grand Prix Circuit and say they are all the same. http://www.allf1.info/tracks/index.php. This takes place in the city of Monaco, actually on the roads of that city, NASCAR has no equivalent.

I'll grant you that there isn't as much overtaking in F1 as there used to be, but that is because they decided to simplify the cars. They limited the engine size, banned turbochargers and recently limited the down force the cars where allowed to use. This was in order to make the races ore about the drivers and less about the mechanics of the car.

And clearly F1 drivers can kick the ass of NASCAR drivers as is demonstrated in the documentary 'Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415306/

Thorin wrote:Am I the only one seeing the irony that Blackstar's biggest point that makes NASCAR so wonderful is that all the tracks are different shapes... All different sizes of oval, and then F1 only has drastically different size and shaped tracks?
He said a bit about that NASCAR drivers must look at all the tyres, the pitting, the fuel levels - erm, well, all that applies to F1, and they have to take real corners, too. The fact NASCAR is confined solely to the USA and F1 is world wide inherantly puts that skill level on a far greater level - F1 has a pool the size of the world's population, including the best US drivers. NASCAR doesn't. And to the point about the guy with the biggest engine in F1 wins... Well... That's funny how Schumacher and Alonso have won when they've had 2, 3, or 4 car makes (ie 4, 6 or 8 drivers) categorically faster than them.

That reminds me about a race I saw where Schumacher won a Grant Prix with a car that was stuck in 3th gear for over half the race. The skill of that man is immense.

IanKennedy wrote:The skill of that man is immense.

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that he is, fundamentally, a cheat. Adelaide '94 just about sums him up.

Captain Seafort wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:The skill of that man is immense.

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that he is, fundamentally, a cheat. Adelaide '94 just about sums him up.

I didn't say I liked him, and he should have been banned for at least a year (without pay) for that incident.