OT: daytona 500 postponed??

[crownjewelwl]

Can't these nascar sissies drive in the rain?? :banana:

[Bruce K]

Definitely not on ovals

But yes they can and quite well it's just that NASCAR chooses not to

BK

[wc1934]

Saw Danica Patrick's interview on cspan (Tuesday) - she has a good sense of humor - enjoys being a girl and believes that the drivers are indeed athletes.

[rice rocket]

Racing in the rain on ovals is a recipe for disaster.

IRL races in the rain on their road courses though.

[MattTuck]

Racing in the rain on ovals is a recipe for disaster.

IRL races in the rain on their road courses though.


If cycling cancelled every race when rain was an issue, there'd be a lot less races.... I know we're talking different levels of speed, but there's no question that given the amount of protection the athletes have, the speeds in both sports can be lethal.

Fixing a bike though, is a quicker and cheaper enterprise than rebuilding a stock car.

[firerescuefin]

Racing in the rain on ovals is a recipe for disaster.

IRL races in the rain on their road courses though.

Nationwide (AAA of Nascar/similar spec to Sprint Cup) has run road courses successfully on rain tires.

[Bruce K]

Rain tires are designed for road courses not ovals. The side loads would never work. Just not enough grip.

Watch the NASCAR guys when they get a chance to drive in one of the LeMans prototypes and they are as fast or faster than the regulars.

These guys get plenty of seat time and not just in Cup and Nationwide cars. They can drive the wheels off just about anything.

Indy cars, F1, NASCAR, it takes talent, skill, and athleticism to drive any one of them at that level. For some drivers it's cultural and for some it's choice (open vs closed wheel) but at that level they are all talented.

BK

[csm]

rally drivers are the best of the best.
they drive in rain, snow, ice, day, night, tarmac and gravel.

[rounder]

I was at Sebring years ago when they had Chapparals and Ferarri protypes racing along with MGBs and Bugeye Sprites which were being blown away by the faster cars. At one point it rained about 4" in about an hour and the small cars with the narrow tires were blowing by the prototypes with fat tires and it was fun.

That was different. At Daytona, the cars are used to going around at 200 mph with oil on the track. With heavy rain, that would be inviting disaster.

[Louis]

Why can't the drivers just slow down?

I would imagine that they are sufficiently skilled to figure out how much slower they would have to go to make it safe(r).

[MattTuck]

Why can't the drivers just slow down?

I would imagine that they are sufficiently skilled to figure out how much slower they would have to go to make it safe(r).

The race would take a long long time!

[swPArider]

less than a month till Sebring!

[wallymann]

they've finished the indy 500 in the rain before and it's like a skating rink. cars go sideways with no warning at walking speeds, regardless of driver skill. that's not racing.

racing in the rain is only feasible on a road course, not a superspeedway!

Why can't the drivers just slow down?

I would imagine that they are sufficiently skilled to figure out how much slower they would have to go to make it safe(r).

[Louis]

they've finished the indy 500 in the rain before and it's like a skating rink. cars go sideways with no warning at walking speeds, regardless of driver skill.

Sounds pretty scary. (I know very little about auto racing.)

I guess the cars (or at a minimum, the tires) are designed for use in a very, very small range of environmental conditions.

If it were just a tire issue I suppose they could tell the teams "If it rains, we still go" and force them to bring tires that also work in the wet, but perhaps it's more than just the rubber.

[oliver1850]

I was at Sebring years ago when they had Chapparals and Ferarri protypes racing along with MGBs and Bugeye Sprites which were being blown away by the faster cars. At one point it rained about 4" in about an hour and the small cars with the narrow tires were blowing by the prototypes with fat tires and it was fun.

That was different. At Daytona, the cars are used to going around at 200 mph with oil on the track. With heavy rain, that would be inviting disaster.


Same thing in the CanAm series. The 2 liter cars were really competitive with the big cars in the rain, a lot less weight to get around the corners, accelerate and slow. I raced at Sebring one year when a GTO car won, but I don't think it rained. The old 930 was just dead reliable, and none of the prototypes were.

[oliver1850]

Sounds pretty scary. (I know very little about auto racing.)

I guess the cars (or at a minimum, the tires) are designed for use in a very, very small range of environmental conditions.

If it were just a tire issue I suppose they could tell the teams "If it rains, we still go" and force them to bring tires that also work in the wet, but perhaps it's more than just the rubber.


Teams at that level don't get to make decisions on what tires to run, the tire companies decide that. We had a front tire blow in practice for the 1985 Michigan 500. Goodyear decided that there was a problem and the race was postponed for a week until they could produce new right front tires for the whole field.

[FlashUNC]

I don't know of an outdoor velodrome that would race in the wet. I can't fathom anyone racing a car on a 40 degree banked oval in the rain. It would be completely unsafe.

[benitosan1972]

I rode Alpenrose Velodrome in Portland once a few years ago... training session
Track bike with slick tires + it was raining (duh, it's Portland) = no bueno
Slippery City, Scary Times, Super Sketchy. I couldn't imagine going into those 45* banked turns with a pack of riders all around me, yikes

[Bruce K]

Louis;

Read back to my earlier post. The side loads on ovals are very different from those cornering on a road course.

Rain tires exist and work well for those cars designed to use them. Superspeedway chassis are different from road chassis. Additionally superspeedway aero packages are designed for high speeds and the cars lose a significant amount of downforce/grip at low speed.

Racing in the rain with a car that is properly set up is a hoot and a half.

Racing in the rain with a car that is not is a recipe for disaster.

BK

[gemship]

I don't know much about Nascar but there is a article in the NYT about it's waning popularity attributed to the recession and a aging demographic of white male fans.

On Danica Patrick- I read that she crashed in one of the qualifying poles but because she swapped points values with someone she will be racing as support for the said points swapper in the back of the pack. I'm sure she is talented but she seems like a big part of the Nascar PR machine. I don't think it's really fair for her to race if she can't qualify legitimately but it's their game and their rules. I won't be watching this event, it's boring to me and dare I say immoral. I don't feel right celebrating such a shameful waste of fuel :o

More importantly if I have the time to sit in front of the tube it means I'm wasting my time not doing stuff around the house. I don't know why I call myself Gemship :rolleyes: when I am more Mr. Realistic.

[William]

I rode Alpenrose Velodrome in Portland once a few years ago... training session
Track bike with slick tires + it was raining (duh, it's Portland) = no bueno
Slippery City, Scary Times, Super Sketchy. I couldn't imagine going into those 45* banked turns with a pack of riders all around me, yikes


Been there, done that. :eek:

Alpenrose is a blast but when it's raining it's pucker factor 10!!!!






William

[benb]

Pretty sure the "not racing on ovals in the rain" thing is just a money decision.. NASCAR in particular is very shrewd about making sure they keep the sport in a place where costs are controlled so that they can make money..

Heck the side load problems are real, but freakin motorcycles even make it work. If they really wanted to race ovals in the rain they could.

Indy makes the same excuses.. I was at the race in NH that got ruined due to an infinitesimal amount of rain last summer. They say it can't be done, but anyone with a clue can see they don't have any tires remotely appropriate.. they're skating around on slick tires completely designed for a 100% dry track.

It's kind of hilarious.. because instead of just figuring out the tire issue they have all this silly infrastructure with jet turbine equipped trucks to try and dry the tracks.

The whole issue with cars crashing horribly if they roll over "marbles" of rubber is the same thing as far as I'm concerned. All of these race series are so buried in rules that I think 99% of the time when they say "it can't be done", it has nothing to do with engineering.. it has to do with how the byzantine regulations & economics put a particular set of restrictions on the engineers.

Heck solving the tire problem in NASCAR would be a hell of a lot easier if the cars weren't so huge & heavy! And the huge & heavy problem is again down to rules & cost saving, not engineering.

[Ken Robb]

I think rain tires for ovals could and would be developed if there was a demand created by oval being run rain or shine.

If I were an attendee I think I would prefer the races be run rain or shine. I would rather wear clothing appropriate for sitting in the rain than have to decide between missing work to see a race delayed beyond the weekend and maybe have to pay BIG up-charges to change airline reservations plus additional hotel charges.

I would think that TV audiences would be bigger for a rainy weekend race than a sunny Monday or Tuesday race when many potential viewers are at work.

Then there is the problem created for race teams who are delayed arriving at the site of the next week's race. Their rebuilding and testing/set-up time is curtailed so they may not achieve their optimum performance there.

[oliver1850]

I don't know much about Nascar but there is a article in the NYT about it's waning popularity attributed to the recession and a aging demographic of white male fans.

On Danica Patrick- I read that she crashed in one of the qualifying poles but because she swapped points values with someone she will be racing as support for the said points swapper in the back of the pack. I'm sure she is talented but she seems like a big part of the Nascar PR machine. I don't think it's really fair for her to race if she can't qualify legitimately but it's their game and their rules. I won't be watching this event, it's boring to me and dare I say immoral. I don't feel right celebrating such a shameful waste of fuel :o

More importantly if I have the time to sit in front of the tube it means I'm wasting my time not doing stuff around the house. I don't know why I call myself Gemship :rolleyes: when I am more Mr. Realistic.

I think the real problem with waning interest is that things have become so regulated that there's nothing interesting about the cars. It's a problem in all forms of racing, but Nascar has taken it to the extreme. When the fans are unable to see and understand what makes one car faster than another, interest wanes. When Smoky Yunick built a 7/8 scale Chevelle or Chrysler showed up with the high winged cars, it was something new and interesting. There's no room for innovation within the rules these days. During Nascar's boom years they at least had body styles that somewhat resembled the brands involved for the loyalists to root for. Now they only have different decals, the body shape is the same.

As far as fuel usage goes, I'd guess a lot more fuel is burned flying a college football team to a game than the cars use in a race. The significant fuel use is by the fans getting to the event in either case. And much much more fuel is wasted by people who live a significant distance from where they work. If we ever address that issue, we will have plenty of fuel to "waste" on sporting events.

[Louis]

http://i1.nyt.com/images/2012/02/28/sports/autoracing/28daytonafire/28daytonafire-hpMedium.jpg

[gemship]

As far as fuel usage goes, I'd guess a lot more fuel is burned flying a college football team to a game than the cars use in a race. The significant fuel use is by the fans getting to the event in either case. And much much more fuel is wasted by people who live a significant distance from where they work. If we ever address that issue, we will have plenty of fuel to "waste" on sporting events.


Bingo! that's just it, I can't elaborate for crap, thanks for posting. To me it's just a colossal trainwreck run by the sheeple. Don't get me wrong I can appreciate vehicles of all sorts but at times I feel torn by having just a wee bit of common sense and thinking,rationalizing too much.

[gemship]

http://i1.nyt.com/images/2012/02/28/sports/autoracing/28daytonafire/28daytonafire-hpMedium.jpg


Yeah seen it on the news last night and adoringly thought of this thread. Oh wait I must correct myself, I was channel surfing last night and seen it live on TV, now you see that was a perfect use of my least productive time and I couldn't even remember the source of my viewing. Garbage in Garbage out, I could be really rich or just like Einstein with all this useless info, must learn to harness the power :D

[crownjewelwl]

what does "my car was really fast" mean? aren't they all regulated in terms of output etc?

and what is a push?

[MattTuck]

what does "my car was really fast" mean? aren't they all regulated in terms of output etc?

and what is a push?

all you need to know is rubbin' is racin'

[eddief]

i don't think i have ever watched more than 5 minutes of stock car racing at any one sitting. can you say "deadman driving?" i get the excitement factor, but what an incredible death wish.

i like Danica. I recommend she saves her beauty and preserves her life in a bathing suit; not a race car. Not because she can't drive, but because why do it?

=Rollerball for zillionaires:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxHCnSJzMc&feature=related

[William]

http://i1.nyt.com/images/2012/02/28/sports/autoracing/28daytonafire/28daytonafire-hpMedium.jpg

Maybe they should have run it in the rain anyway. ;)



William

[Louis]

Maybe they should have run it in the rain anyway. ;)

I thought about saying that, but did not want to belabor the point.

[William]

I thought about saying that, but did not want to belabor the point.


I thought that was the whole point of the internet. :confused:





William :)

[wallymann]

...nicely.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/429408_10150695068879882_54520964881_11026532_9962 81687_n.jpg

[Frankwurst]

I think the real problem with waning interest is that things have become so regulated that there's nothing interesting about the cars. It's a problem in all forms of racing, but Nascar has taken it to the extreme. When the fans are unable to see and understand what makes one car faster than another, interest wanes. When Smoky Yunick built a 7/8 scale Chevelle or Chrysler showed up with the high winged cars, it was something new and interesting. There's no room for innovation within the rules these days. During Nascar's boom years they at least had body styles that somewhat resembled the brands involved for the loyalists to root for. Now they only have different decals, the body shape is the same.

I'd be willing to bet there is only a couple people on this forum that knows who Smokey Yunick was. You being one of them. :beer:

[chuckroast]

I do, I also remember the pictures of the infamous Chevelle.

[oliver1850]

I was actually at Smoky's shop once. I can't remember why, we probably wanted to borrow something, prepping two cars for the 24 hour race.

"Push" is understeer. The car doesn't want to go around the corner. Can result from many factors such as suspension stiffness (chassis set up), aerodynamic loading (oops shouldn't have hit that guy, lost my air dam), bad set of tires, etc.

"Fast car" usually means that the team got the setup right. But some engine builders are consistently ahead of everyone else, even with all the regulations. I only tuned in for the last 40 laps because my brother happened to call and ask if I was watching, but the Roush cars looked to have everything right.