F1 to NASCAR or NASCAR to F1. Which is an easier transition?

[Metar]

Earth - is it just me, or is this another F1-bashthread of yours?

Read the first post carefully. Then every other post you made here. Apart from the "F1 is difficult as well" (which is obligatory in order to seem a non-fanboy), where did you post the harder parts of Formula 1? You post and rave about how fit NASCAR drivers are, about how they endure 4-hour races, or are so much smarter because they have a simple(r), heavy car.

Have you considered how difficult it is to set up a Formula 1 car? There's a reason rookies load their more experienced teammate's setup. You have a featherweight car, mere millimeters off the ground at times - and you need to play around with some of the most advances suspensions in the world, and that's without bringing aerodynamics into the equation - Many a driver lost precious time in qualifying because his aerodynamic balance wasn't good.

And you mentioned driving in traffic - I think we can all agree Formula 1 cars are far more sensitive to "dirty air" than NASCAR cars. That comes simply from the way they are built - and the raw amount of downforce they create. Yes, there's a huge amount of skill and thinking involved in NASCAR, having to manage both a lot of backmarkers, and find draft-partners, without getting boxed in or left to dry - but doesn't it take a huge amount of skill to simply pass in Formula 1? I've watched a fair amount of NASCAR and IRL ovals - and frankly, I don't care if the they passed each other 50 times, if all it takes to pass is a long wait in the draft. Consider how long it takes an F1 driver to built an opportunity - and how rarely those opportunities actually end up as a pass.

And last but not least: You mentioned Sprint Cup drivers Vs. Karts. That'd be like comparing Driver's Ed to Skip Barber. Karts is a feeder to a feeder to a feeder: it's the way most Europeans racers start - whether they'll be heading to Formula 3 and GP2 (which are F1 feeders), or WRC.

Here's a piece of GP2 driving:




Remember - just because it looks smooth, doesn't mean it's any easier.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

^^ Nice!
Now watch this onboard lap from the Monaco GP in 2001.

Think that looks easy??? And that is the qualifying lap. Imagine that with traffic! For 78 laps...

 

[Perfect Balance]

That is the worst crap I´ve read in a very long time!!

I agree, I actually lol'ed. He basically described a few "weird" circles and used that as an attempt to rival the variety of tracks in f1.

 

[Jim Prower]

*Shakes head*

I'm basically gonna take parts of the opinions on one side, and some of them from the other, put 'em together, form MY opinion.

The talk is always NASCAR vs. F1 simply because we on opposite sides of the pond like to bicker at each other. However, can we find common ground?

What's the same:
Cars have four wheels.
Downforce is important.
Cars are plastered with sponsor stickers. F1's more "Glamourous" than NASCAR's, but whatever...
Drivers must have high levels of endurance
Drivers must have high levels of skill
Lots of money involved
Lots of technology involved (NASCAR's is offtrack.)
Major corporations involved
HEAVILY REGULATED
cars go fast
cars must be setup for every track/situation, and adjusted
Teams try to cheat/find gray area/be creative

I could go on and on. We can pick apart the differences, but racing is racing.

Ovals vs Road courses

Same challenges. You have 18 different setups for every F1 track. Monaco's so radical it's almost a different car. NASCAR used to actually BUILD different cars, short track, superspeedway, and Road Course, but with the COT, every chassis must meet a certain spec, but they're still incredibly adjustable. you still have...oh, twenty or so different setups. so that's the same.

So what do we get? One series has small, whiny cars that turn right most of the time and can't pass at high speeds, while the other has big, noisy ones that turn left almost ALL the time, and CAN pass.

Which is which I shoot for the middle.

Touring Cars, FTW. The Onboard shots are usually much better, anyway.

((By the way, why should we care if a turn goes right or left? a long turn is a long turn, a short turn is a short turn, and a high-banked turn is a high-banked turn.))

 

[RACECAR]

*Shakes head*

I'm basically gonna take parts of the opinions on one side, and some of them from the other, put 'em together, form MY opinion.

The talk is always NASCAR vs. F1 simply because we on opposite sides of the pond like to bicker at each other. However, can we find common ground?

What's the same:
Cars have four wheels.
Downforce is important.
Cars are plastered with sponsor stickers. F1's more "Glamourous" than NASCAR's, but whatever...
Drivers must have high levels of endurance
Drivers must have high levels of skill
Lots of money involved
Lots of technology involved (NASCAR's is offtrack.)
Major corporations involved
HEAVILY REGULATED
cars go fast
cars must be setup for every track/situation, and adjusted
Teams try to cheat/find gray area/be creative

I could go on and on. We can pick apart the differences, but racing is racing.

Ovals vs Road courses

Same challenges. You have 18 different setups for every F1 track. Monaco's so radical it's almost a different car. NASCAR used to actually BUILD different cars, short track, superspeedway, and Road Course, but with the COT, every chassis must meet a certain spec, but they're still incredibly adjustable. you still have...oh, twenty or so different setups. so that's the same.

So what do we get? One series has small, whiny cars that turn right most of the time and can't pass at high speeds, while the other has big, noisy ones that turn left almost ALL the time, and CAN pass.

Which is which I shoot for the middle.

Touring Cars, FTW. The Onboard shots are usually much better, anyway.

((By the way, why should we care if a turn goes right or left? a long turn is a long turn, a short turn is a short turn, and a high-banked turn is a high-banked turn.))

I agree. It doesn't matter who's car has more technology or what course they run on or What drivers do what. At the end of the day, They are both competitors, they both require skill, and all of them compete for one purpose: To win. Whether you have technology or not, If it has an engine, four wheels, and makes alot of horsepower and its built for the track, It most likely is made to race. As I said before, These Debates about "NASCAR Vs. F1" are pointless because the fact of the matter is that no matter what facts we put up or , none of us (that I know of) have been in either car so we aren't in any position to make comments or make ignorant assumptions. Unless we've been behind the wheel of any of these cars, none of what we say is quite accurate.

 

[TwinTurbos94]

*Shakes head*

I'm basically gonna take parts of the opinions on one side, and some of them from the other, put 'em together, form MY opinion.

The talk is always NASCAR vs. F1 simply because we on opposite sides of the pond like to bicker at each other. However, can we find common ground?

What's the same:
Cars have four wheels.
Downforce is important.
Cars are plastered with sponsor stickers. F1's more "Glamourous" than NASCAR's, but whatever...
Drivers must have high levels of endurance
Drivers must have high levels of skill
Lots of money involved
Lots of technology involved (NASCAR's is offtrack.)
Major corporations involved
HEAVILY REGULATED
cars go fast
cars must be setup for every track/situation, and adjusted
Teams try to cheat/find gray area/be creative

I could go on and on. We can pick apart the differences, but racing is racing.

Ovals vs Road courses

Same challenges. You have 18 different setups for every F1 track. Monaco's so radical it's almost a different car. NASCAR used to actually BUILD different cars, short track, superspeedway, and Road Course, but with the COT, every chassis must meet a certain spec, but they're still incredibly adjustable. you still have...oh, twenty or so different setups. so that's the same.

So what do we get? One series has small, whiny cars that turn right most of the time and can't pass at high speeds, while the other has big, noisy ones that turn left almost ALL the time, and CAN pass.

Which is which I shoot for the middle.

Touring Cars, FTW. The Onboard shots are usually much better, anyway.

((By the way, why should we care if a turn goes right or left? a long turn is a long turn, a short turn is a short turn, and a high-banked turn is a high-banked turn.))

I agree. It doesn't matter who's car has more technology or what course they run on or What drivers do what. At the end of the day, They are both competitors, they both require skill, and all of them compete for one purpose: To win. Whether you have technology or not, If it has an engine, four wheels, and makes alot of horsepower and its built for the track, It most likely is made to race. As I said before, These Debates about "NASCAR Vs. F1" are pointless because the fact of the matter is that no matter what facts we put up or , none of us (that I know of) have been in either car so we aren't in any position to make comments or make ignorant assumptions. Unless we've been behind the wheel of any of these cars, none of what we say is quite accurate.

I see no purpose in this thread. It's going to turn into a pissing contest between the two sides and the people in the middle are like "This is stupid".



Both have pros and cons,each person's perception on what pro and con is more "difficult" is diffrent,which in the long run is going to end in what I said above.

I found that funny........

 

[nissan tuner]

No, they are not fit in the right way. They are strong, no doubt at all, but not trained in the correct enduring way. Sure, they last the entire length of 500 laps or so on an oval, but the forces involved in F1 is just incomprehensable. You´d have to find a fighterjet to get to same level.

As an example I can mension that during the Malaysian GP, a driver can lose up 3kg (6.6lbs) in weight (and F1 drivers tend to be pretty small, Adrian Sutil is heaviest with 75kg or 165lbs), due to loss of fluids. To be able to perform for two hours straight under such conditions, takes your man.

+10 you wouldn't send one of those "strongman" athletes out to compete in tour de france (most nascar drivers arnt in the shape Edwards is in anyways). its all about muscle density not muscle size and it would take 1.5 years minimum for that said nascar driver to get in shape for formula 1.

so skill level aside, its easier for a formula 1 driver to go nascar, no questions asked

 

[Metar]

I agree. It doesn't matter who's car has more technology or what course they run on or What drivers do what. At the end of the day, They are both competitors, they both require skill, and all of them compete for one purpose: To win. Whether you have technology or not, If it has an engine, four wheels, and makes alot of horsepower and its built for the track, It most likely is made to race. As I said before, These Debates about "NASCAR Vs. F1" are pointless because the fact of the matter is that no matter what facts we put up or , none of us (that I know of) have been in either car so we aren't in any position to make comments or make ignorant assumptions. Unless we've been behind the wheel of any of these cars, none of what we say is quite accurate.

That's the point - but Earth seems to make it a habit to create more and more threads comparing the two. I respect NASCAR, and enjoy watching some of the races - but I'm not going around creating threads highlighting it's superiority over F1. Nor do I do the opposite, despite the fact that I just enjoy F1 a lot more.

 

[RACECAR]

That's the point - but Earth seems to make it a habit to create more and more threads comparing the two. I respect NASCAR, and enjoy watching some of the races - but I'm not going around creating threads highlighting it's superiority over F1. Nor do I do the opposite, despite the fact that I just enjoy F1 a lot more.

Ah, I remember that one. I do kind of find it strange that its only Earth making threads involving these two(Though looking every else, he wouldn't be the first).

 

[Venari]

Almost everything here is more or less a general statement.

Don't worry, PB. I read this and found it very funny. Damn the rest of the thread.

 

[Joey D]

While I don't like F1 or NASCAR (both for various reasons) I can respect what both types of drivers do. I willing to bet any of of us who got behind the wheel of either car would have our hands full and walk away with a greater respect for what these drivers do.

I think probably the most skilled drivers in motorsports are those who compete is the WRC. They are not only driving on various surfaces, but they are often on very small roads right next to spectators, trees, animals, cliffs, etc. That must take nerves of steel to do that because you are in such an uncontrolled environment.

 

[Jim Prower]

Not just driving on various surfaces, on very narrow roads, right next to spectators, trees, Animals, Cliffs, etc...

But doing that while going at 11/10ths in a VERY FAST car. That takes a near suicidal trust in yourself and machine.