Sorry road race fans, the WC race at The Glen was the best road race this weekend.

[Joe Fan]

I watched the F1 Hungarian GP, the CART race at Mid-Ohio and the Winston Cup road race at The Glen was the best road course race this weekend. The F1 race was essentially over after the first turn when Mika Hakkinen overtook Michael Schumacher, the CART race was dominated by the Penske cars but the Winston Cup race at The Glen provided more passing and drama than the other two. In fact, the Watkins Glen WC race had more passing than the Brickyard 400 race last weekend. I wish NASCAR would build another track like The Glen and race at one more road course each year.

As far as the incidents in the race, too bad for Jerry Nadeau, Ricky Rudd, Jeff Gordon, Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Ron Fellows. They could have made it a much more exciting race at the end if they didn't have their share of problems.

What was the deal between Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon? My take on it is that Tony Stewart needs to learn to be more patient. He probably could have won the race if he had been more patient with Gordon in that situation especially that early on in the race.

[Lee]

Hi Joe,
I'll take you word for it that the Winston Cup race was the best of the weekend. Of course, I'll always say that NASCAR is a better race than any other series. I didn't watch it, sorry, I just can't get into road racing, and care nothing about it, even if its stock cars racing. JMO but stock cars belong on ovals. I heard that Gordon and Stewart got into some kind of fight or something, guess they both will be paying a visit to the NASCAR trailor.

[BMWRacerITS]

Stewart made a childish and stupid move on the second lap of the race trying to prevent Gordon from passing. He literally tried to shut the door with Gordon 100% along side, there was no question as to whether Gordon would make the pass. Then, after shutting the door on the inside, Stewart ran him off the track on the outside in the next turn.

Yeah yeah, so its NASCAR and "rubbin's racin". BUT, Stewart essentially took himself out of contention by being an idiot. I would have liked to have seen Gordon give the lead a run as well.

NONE of this would have happened if the NASCAR organization weren't a bunch of pansies and would have held qualifying in the rain. That was the biggest bunch of horsecrap I have ever seen! Staging by owners point? Give me a break!

Its things like this that remind me why I stopped watching NASCAR on a regular basis. I'll gladly take Australian Touring Car. Just as much rubbin' as NASCAR from some guys who actually know how to drive a car.

The F1 and Cart races were pretty lame today. F1 is really beginning to get on my nerves. I say, get rid of all the rules and just let um run. F1 has never been for "small-time" racing budgets anyway, why try to make it more affordable? I'm ready for some real high tech stuff!!

By the way, I'm new to the boards! Glad to be here!

------------------
Auto racing, bullfighting, and rock climbing are the only real sports...
all others are games.
-Ernest Hemingway

[Crash Test]

NONE of this would have happened if the NASCAR organization weren't a bunch of
pansies and would have held qualifying in the rain.

-What? They race and qualify the Nascars in the rain on the road courses down here in Australia in the wet...please don't tell me they didn't have any rain tyres...

[Joe Fan]

NASCAR did not attempt to qualify in the rain on Friday because no team was able to get any practice in beforehand. Then on Saturday, about eight drivers got to qualify before it started raining again. Attempting to qualify the rest of the field would have created an unfair advantage for those who qualified early in the dry conditions since NASCAR qualifying in a one lap deal.

Overall, I think NASCAR did the right thing not trying to re-qualify in semi-wet conditions on Saturday. All it would have taken is another death of a driver to make it look like a terrible decision. Watkins Glen is an extremely fast road course with lots of fast downhill sections. NASCAR Winston Cup cars do not have the downforce compared to a F1 or Champ car so this would make the cars even more difficult to drive in slick conditions due to lack of grip. Also NASCAR teams and drivers have very limited experience racing in wet conditions. The only one that I know of is the exhibition race at Suzuka, Japan a couple of years ago when they qualifed for the race in the rain.

[Crash Test]

All it would have taken is another death of a driver to make it
look like a terrible decision

-With all due respect, I would imagine driving in the dry would be a lot more dangerous that the dry, so far as major accidents would be concerned. In the dry the cars would be carrying more speed, and the driver would be on the edge. But generally in the wet, drivers display a but more restraint, and should show soem respect to the conditions, thus paying more attention to what they are doing.

As i said before, Nascars have raced in the rain several times here in Australia in wet conditions on road tracks before without severe problems. Surely the Nascar boys in the US are competetent enough to handle themselves in something that may be new to them.


NASCAR Winston Cup cars do not have the downforce compared to a F1 or Champ car so this
would make the cars even more difficult to drive in slick conditions due to lack of grip.

-The cars would also have very low grip compared to F1 cars in the dry, that's why wet weather tyres were invented. Did whoever supply the tyres not have any on the weekend?

[Joe Fan]

During the race, I seen rain tires in the pits so I think they were prepared to race in the wet. However, qualifying is a situation where drivers are pressing for one lap to get get a good starting spot. Which is why I think NASCAR decided to line the cars up by points instead of attempting to qualify in those conditions. Some spots on the track were completely wet on Saturday (like the inner loop) and others fairly dry.

[BMWRacerITS]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
All it would have taken is another death of a driver to make it look like a terrible decision. Watkins Glen is an extremely fast road course with lots of fast downhill sections. NASCAR Winston Cup cars do not have the downforce compared to a F1 or Champ car so this would make the cars even more difficult to drive in slick conditions due to lack of grip. Also NASCAR teams and drivers have very limited experience racing in wet conditions. The only one that I know of is the exhibition race at Suzuka, Japan a couple of years ago when they qualifed for the race in the rain.

As one who has raced in the rain quite a few times, let me say, you may have a few more fender benders, but the severity of the wrecks is WAY WAY down. We are talking speeds that are reduced by more than 50%. You would have to try to kill yourself in this situation.

Also, I would much rather be driving a car without downforce in the rain. Downforce is great, except as soon as you get out of shape (which happens a LOT in the rain), downforce is instantly lost, creating a huge gap in the mechanical grip of the tires and the amount of grip needed to save the car from spinning. Also, speeds are so low in the turns that downforce hardly comes into play. The only real help that downforce would play in the rain is at the beginning of a braking zone.

As far as NASCAR's inexperience, well, you gotta start sometime! NASCAR is so far behind and snickered at by racer's around the world, because for the most part, they are a bunch of pansies. I couldn't believe some of the quotes I heard about the driver's disgust for NASCAR actually considering the possibility of running in the rain. I've grown up here in the South and love the competitive nature of NASCAR, but as far as being compared to race series around the world, NASCAR has a long way to go. For instance, if they would use very simply electronic throttle technology, found in almost every passenger car on the road, these past stuck throttle wrecks that caused deaths might have never happend...

[Joe Fan]

BMWracer, qualifying in wet-dry-wet conditions that the track had saturday is a totally different story than racing in the rain. What are the drivers suppose to do? Some areas of the track looked dry but were slick due to moisture. I could easily see quite a few drivers tearing up expensive equipment because they were trying to eek out as much speed as they could and then hitting a wet part of the track that they could not visibly see. NASCAR punted on Friday in hopes that the qualifying could be done all on Saturday. I think they made the right decision. Also rain tires blister badly unless they are raced in wet conditions. I don't view the NASCAR drivers as pansies for not desiring to qualify in those conditions.

[Heeltoe6]

"I could easily see quite a few drivers tearing up expensive equipment because they were trying to eek out as much speed as they could and then hitting a wet part of the track that they could not visibly see."
TS. As BigBill would say, the throttle works both ways. IF these drivers are so good, they'll know when to lift, or else it's thier own fault. Look, BigBill sent them racing into talladega with the tyres blistering after only a handful of laps. The drivers had a choice, race or go home. Many wenyt home. But they filled the field. And trust me, the way the points are arranged today, none wouldd've packed it in, they al would've qualified if Nascar said we're going to qualify in the wet. But nowadays, all Nascar is worried about is a big PR disaster.

"NASCAR punted on Friday in hopes that the qualifying could be done all on Saturday"
Wrong decision. On Fri, it was perfect conditions for a wet q-ing session, no dry spots to blister the tyres, and it stayed wet the ehole time, no unfair advantage. On sat, cause of the changing wet/dry conditions, it would have been unfair to qualify some in the wet and some in the dry, which is why they shoukld;ve done it on Fri while they had a good chance. But it also raises a bigger issues, when qualifying is in the wet, Nascar should do it CART style with groups(they've done this for the drynin bgn and cts), that way, even if the track conditions change, everyone copes woith the chagnes so no unfair advantages.

As for inexperience in the rain, there was SUzuka which I'd say about 10 drivers attended. BUt there was also last year's Fri practice in the rain, which everyone had a chance to do, although only about 30 drivers went out.BUt also, why wasn't there wet practice on Fri? They had enough time, if they were conerned about not haivng enough experience in the wet, just start another practice session.

This scenario would'nt be so bad if it happened in 1998. But since 98, Nascar has said, "If it rains, we're running anyways," but has consistently bvacked away from that stance. Someone said last year after the first(and only) WC praqctice in the wet session, that Nascar would never use the tyres competitvely(for race or q-ing) cause they are just too scared. Looks like whoever that poster was, they nare right.



Nascar says they have the "best drivers in the world." Well, let them show how good they are.

[Heeltoe6]

Oh yeah, about the Stewart/Gordon incident, it seems that the Goodyears didin't adhere to those stupid concrete patches when the tyre temps were low. THat was probably the most contributing factor

[Joe Fan]

Heeltoe, NASCAR has said that they would race in the rain at a road course if necessary but they have never said that they would qualfiy under those conditions. I personally think it was a good decision to line them up by points although I do admit that a wet qualifying would have been interesting. However, I don't want to see someone's championship hopes get ruined or life being taken by hasty and bold decision making. I really think NASCAR thought they could get the qualifying in on saturday. Like I have said earlier, these cars are low downforce cars and they don't have the security blanket of a wing helping push and stabilize the cars on the track like the open wheel cars have. I have read that due to the downforce produced by the wings and the light weight of open wheel cars, they could theoretically run upside down at speeds of 175mph.

[BMWRacerITS]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
Like I have said earlier, these cars are low downforce cars and they don't have the security blanket of a wing helping push and stabilize the cars on the track like the open wheel cars have. I have read that due to the downforce produced by the wings and the light weight of open wheel cars, they could theoretically run upside down at speeds of 175mph.

I think I touched on this earlier, but let me restate again. Downforce is in NO way a security blanket in the rain. Downforce simply increase the amount of friction that a tire is able to have with the surface. So YES, with downforce, one can run faster in the rain than without it. BUT, downforce actually makes things MUCH less safe in the rain. Reason being, once a car gets out of shape (begins moving in an undesired direction), downforce is lost. Once downforce is gone, the only friction left is that of the mechanical gripping force of the tires. Thus the driver is left with ZERO room for recovery once past downforce is lost. The driver was already moving at a speed faster than the mechanical force of the tire would allow without downforce, thus a simply out of shape becomes a spin when downforce is lost.

Also, downforce really doesn't come into play until 80mph for the best cars. My M3 with the Lightweight spoiler really doesn't make significant downforce till 100mph. With the average speed at 120 something in the dry, you can bet they would be around 65-70 in the wet, meaning that downforce would hardly even come into play except in the straightaway's. And we all know, downforce doesn't really help when you are going straight (unless you are braking of course).

I still think NASCAR should have run the qualifying. Would have been fun to see those guys poke around the track without the slightest idea what a wet line is.

[Crash Test]

Heeltoe6: Couldn't have said it better myself.

As far as wet tyres blistering? In qualifying over one lap? Ahhh, maybe Goodyear should stop using marshmallows in the construction of their tyres then... If it is so dry that the tyre falls apart in one lap, use slicks...

In the race if it is half wet and half dry, it simply adds another dimesion to the race. Does the driver go hard, conserve, change tyres...the rest of the world has been racing in the wet since the dwn of time, why can't Nascar get with the times?

[Lee]

BMWRacerITS,
Being new to this board, First, I'll extend a welcome. You say that you have raced many times in the rain, and I don't doubt that, reading your profile, I see what you have driven happens to be small sports cars, cars that maybe weigh about 1/3 as much as a Winston Cup car. Cars also that are far more suited to being raced in the rain. My question to you is, have you ever driven a stock car? Anything from a late model sportsman up to a Winston Cup style car? I have, late models, and I've taken some laps (back in the 70s) in a Grand National (before they were called Winston Cup) car. These are completely different animals than what you are use to driving. Much heavier, and I'd dare say a good bit more powerful. They are powerful enough to easily break the wheels loose on a completely dry track, one can only immagen what would happen on a wet surface! These are also oval track machines. This is one of many reasons why I say to race stock cars on a road course is a waste of a date when they could be running on an oval, preferablly short track, or a superspeedway somewhere in the country. I think your blanket definition of NASCAR ( by that you seem to be saying drivers, teams, organization as a whole) as a bunch of pansies, is quite unfair, and is a slap in the face to all parties, in that organization! Joe Fan is right, NASCAR made the right call about qualifing. Also, if speeds are reduced roughly 50% in the rain, as you seem to be saying they would be, lets see, approx 120 mph a lap, divided by 2 equals 60 mph, who would want to watch a race run at lower than expressway speeds? That would make an already boring race more boring. Understand, I am not being critical of you, I am just pointing out that driving a stock car, and driving a sportscar are two entirely different things, as some would say, "as different as apples and oranges" What works for and in one doesn't work for and in the other. Don't believe me, ask Scott Pruett, he has now raced both, professionally, and has gone as far as to say the same thing. Have a good day.

[Heeltoe6]

"Does the driver go hard, conserve, change tyres..."
Crash: That would be cool if the rules allow it. However, the deicison to go to wets(and I think they only have 1 wet compund, no intermediates) is made by Nacar race control, and there is a mandatory yellow where everyone is forced to change tyres without loss of position. Which is probably the way to go for the first few times as these guys(ex. a few) haven't driven in the rain, and the cc's wouldn't know rain strategy. Maybe once they got their feet wet, and actuall had a few rain races9if this ever happens), then they could let the teams make thier own call. But now, there is no startegy involving rain tyres.

Speaking of history, I really want to say that there was a wc race run in the wet and Road America back in the 50s, but I am not totally sure.

[Crash Test]

Actually i think i have to agree with you for one with respect to road courses

That is a part of going to the road courses, you can run in the wet. If you are not prepared/want to/or are scared, you should probably stick to an oval.

Surely it would be much cheaper for the teams if they didnt have to put up with the hassle of 2 road races every year. If they were to be taken seriously with road tracks, then they should stack the calendar with them. But everyone will agree that that is not the way to go.

Here in OZ, Nascar is heading down the road track path, and it will most likely be very beneficial for them. But in the states....

[Lee]

Crash Test,
I thought you and Marcus both told me, several months ago, that NASCAR was either completely dead, or was dying down there in Austraila! What happened, did it experience some kind of revival?

[Crash Test]

Actually...

Yep, it died, but apparently it is on the come back. It is going to be primarily road course based, and from what i gather it is going to be organised more from the participant standpoint, ie they are going to promote and run the class themselves.

This should be great for the class, as there are only 2 ovals in the country, and only one of those is a decent super speedway. The Australian public needs something during the Summer months to keep them entertained, and Australians love the sound of V8s, so it should kick on.

Apparently one of my local tracks has secured a round (Queensland Raceway) and the track owner has recently purchased a car for his son (Drew Kruck, of Sprintcar fame) to run. Grids of 30 cars are expected, so it should be excellent. If it is promoted the right, which the new people who own the track are doing, the event should really appeal to the blue collar people of the area. \

At the Australian Super Truck championships out at QR, they had a few Nascars go out and do some laps with some Sprint Cars during the lunch break, certainly all of the people who went to that event would come back to see the Nascars.

Where this move to road tracks leaves the support classes such as Auscars, Sportsmans, Legends, HQs, im not sure.
Auscars have pretty much been reborn as Future Tourers, so they might follow them around.
Sportsmans?
Legends -well if all of the Australian bodied cars which have been getting a lot of press lately show, they would be a goer.
HQs...well who knows...

[BMWRacerITS]

Lee-

I've had the chance to drive a stock car on an oval track, but it was only in the 630hp range instead of the 700+ of the Winston Cup cars. Sure the cars are fairly heavy, but I didn't find it to be that hard to drive. Not to mention, I have friends who drive retired Winston Cup cars in Historical racing and they don't seem to have any problems driving them in the wet, and they are racing on a club level for NO prizes.

My BMW is required to weigh no less than 2850# by SCCA rules, so it is definitely not 1/3 the weight of a Winston Cup car.

I have also had the chance to drive a 650hp Mustang that weighed 3500#'s, not much lighter than a Winston Cup car. Again, I don't see the problem.

Regarding the Scott Pruett comparison. He did go from a car that was 1/3 of the weight of a stock car coming from open wheels. But, the open wheel cars are MORE powerful and MORE likely to spin wheels at lower speeds because of the fact that they are lighter. I can definitely tell you that running an open wheel car is a very different experience from any full bodied race car.

My point is this. If you are a professional race car driver, you should posess the skill and finess to race any car in any conditions. Rain effectively limits the ability of the car to go fast in the corners, meaning that it requires more skill from the driver to extract the most out of the car. Rain literally seperates the men from the boys.

Besides, who said stock cars were meant for ovals? In many other countries (Australia for example), stock cars are raced on road courses a great deal of the time. Oval stock car racing is just something America has latched onto because it is extremely fan friendly.

As far as watching a road course race in the rain being boring. Maybe so for some. I personally love watching wet races. I appreciate just how good the drivers are when I watch them dance a car around the track so smoothly and so much faster than you would ever expect possible.

Its hard not to be discouraged by NASCAR, when they are the only racing series I can think of in the world that has yet to run races in the rain. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't get it. They get paid lots of money to race a car, but they say no because of a little rain? Reminds me of our baseball players striking because multiple millions of dollars a year just wasn't high enough of a salary for them!!

[Crash Test]

Originally posted by BMWRacerITS

Besides, who said stock cars were meant for ovals? In many other countries (Australia for example), stock cars are raced on road courses a great deal of the time. Oval stock car racing is just something America has latched onto because it is extremely fan friendly.

-Actually i have to disagree with you there, having only seen Nascars in the flesh on road courses. The breaking distances are at least twice those of ANY other class of car...some say increased breaking distances make for more overtaking, but in the case of Nascar, the brakes are so poor it eliminats many passing opportunities. Also the breakes burn up after a very short time.

Also the mid corner performance, with such a large wait...well umm...isn't all that crash hot. They also chew up tyres at a better rate than a lot of other classes in a similar time bracket.

That was one of the things mooted with regards to the Australian Nascar revival, larger diameter wheels, better brakes, less weight.

Originally posted by BMWRacerITS

As far as watching a road course race in the rain being boring. Maybe so for some. I personally love watching wet races. I appreciate just how good the drivers are when I watch them dance a car around the track so smoothly and so much faster than you would ever expect possible.

-Agree totally there...the only bad thing about a wet track when the rain is also coming down is that I'm not brave enough to pull the camera out

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by BMWRacerITS
[/B]

So YES, with downforce, one can run faster in the rain than without it. BUT, downforce actually makes things MUCH less safe in the rain. Reason being, once a car gets out of shape (begins moving in an undesired direction), downforce is lost. Once downforce is gone, the only friction left is that of the mechanical gripping force of the tires. Thus the driver is left with ZERO room for recovery once past downforce is lost. The driver was already moving at a speed faster than the mechanical force of the tire would allow without downforce, thus a simply out of shape becomes a spin when downforce is lost. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well hey, if it is unsafe, why don't they take them training wings off and race like real men then? The speeds would be slow enough in the wet that they shouldn't need them anyway. Then we would see who could really drive and who is a product of their mount.

Seriously, wings are one of the things I don't like about open wheel racing. The racing becomes too much of an exercise of steering rather than driving. Just run the cars hard in the corner without little worry of the back of the car coming around on you. If you get in to deep in a corner, just drift up and back off the throttle. When I seen Kenny Brack scrub tires at 200mph at Homestead this year, it told me all I needed to know about how difficult the cars are to drive compared to Cup cars with a six inch spoiler. Personally myself, I appreciate skill involved with any type of racing but in open wheel ranks, the more skilled drivers were the ones who raced in the era before wings in my opinion. I still have tremendous respect for all motorsports and their drivers but I appreciate a driver having more control over his driving without all the aids that are now available in F1 and Champ cars. I think these series have gone to the outer limits to make the cars go faster and at the same time, taken much of the actual skill factor out of racing them. Juan Manuel Fangio was a master at power sliding through a corner. His abilities helped separate him more from his peers. Today in major open wheel ranks, it has become of a factor of the car you have under you. Such has always been the case but more so today than in the past.

[BMWRacerITS]

Originally posted by Joe Fan

Personally myself, I appreciate skill involved with any type of racing but in open wheel ranks, the more skilled drivers were the ones who raced in the era before wings in my opinion. I still have tremendous respect for all motorsports and their drivers but I appreciate a driver having more control over his driving without all the aids that are now available in F1 and Champ cars.

Here's the catch. Car's with lots of downforce have a VERY, VERY, VERY narrow line between being absolutely blindingly fast, and absolutely completeyl out of control. Thus, driver's of today who can walk that line are amazingly skilled.

It comes back down to what I was describing above about downforce being less safe in the rain. Downforce "artificially" allows the tires to create more friction with the surface. Once the driver exceeds the limit however and the car begins to get out of shape, aerodynamics of the car no longer provide as much downforce (ie. the car isn't travelling straight). Once this happens, the car is travelling at a speed that the tires alone aren't able to handle. Being able to balance on this fine, fine line is what makes the driver's of today so good. I will admit, having a good car is also very important, as the better the car, the easier a driver can dance along this line.

The reason driver's of old could power slide the cars was because they weren't relying on downforce to create traction. The only factor they dealt with was the direct mechanical grip of the tire. In this case, the line between control and out of control is much broader, allowing great drivers to exceed the line and bring the car back without so much as a hiccup. I don't mean to discount past drivers, but only mean to say that any driver who can consitently drive a car at its limit is a GREAT driver, no matter what kind of car he's driving.