Schumacher on NASCAR (OUCH!)

[amp88]

Pit strategies are much more difficult in NASCAR. Do not even try to start a comparison. Everyone likes to pit at or near the same time. This becomes a big problem entering and exiting. As I'm positive YSSMAN has seen, there have been MANY accidents where drivers have pulled out of their pits and clipped other drivers.

That's a matter of opinion. You say most people pit at or near the same time in NASCAR, so there's not really a lot of difference in the weights of the cars due to fuel. You can't second-guess someone else's strategy because you'll all be in in the same two lap window. In F1, you can have a field where some people are on one stop strategies, some are on two and some on three. There can be a 50 kilo difference in the weights of the cars and you could have to change your race strategy during the race to match a competitor or try to gain an advantage. AFAIK, that doesn't happen in NASCAR (though you could say that yellow flags cause everyone to jump into the pits, but that happens in most motorsport). Pit lane accidents also happen in F1 (people being released into other driver's path, cars not stopping in time and taking out mechanics). I remember seeing an F1 season review (1982 I think), where one driver went out through the crowd of mechanics of the team in front so he could accelerate in a straight line and not have to swerve into the main pitlane. There also used to be no pit-lane speed limits in F1 (up until 1994, when an accident in the pitlane at Imola lead to the introduction of limits). It's just my opinion, but I think strategy and pitting in F1 is more hectic and involved than NASCAR.

I also give skill in trying to minimize damage to NASCAR drivers after an accident. Unlike everytime I've seen a F1 car crash, it's usually very quick, over fast, and safety 99% guaranteed.
In NASCAR, you don't stop after a hit. You keep going and even if you can get the car to stop safely, the biggest priority is to get your car off the track as much as you can while in a spin out or whatever. Unlike F1, where if someone crashes, its usually a fast action and over quickly again, in NASCAR, everyone can still plow into you and before you know it, you're travelling sideways on the ground, in the air, or in a rollever at 100Mph.

I can see where you're coming from with this one, but I'd say it's more to do with the run off areas in F1. In NASCAR if you have an accident, chances are you're going to go up the track and towards the wall (on an oval course, anyway) because of what direction you were travelling in before you had the accident. This means that you've got a car travelling at 150+mph sideways along the track covering a large portion of the racing line, until it gets collected by the pack or slides down the banking to the bottom. In F1, when you have a crash there's usually a lot of run-off area so either the crashed car goes off the track and settles at the side or the following cars can take avoiding action round the outside. I'd say this was more due to track design than the cars or drivers. Of course, with grippier tyres, F1 cars will slow down more quickly than NASCAR cars when sliding down the track sideways.

Please show me a F1 race where a racer has crashed, and begun a series of chain reactions that is seen in NASCAR.

Belgium 1998 is a good example of that. Plenty of accidents in the middle and back of the pack because of an accident up ahead. Note the track is very narrow with little run off area, as I suggested above. 5 cars (out of a field of 22 starters) made it through unscathed.

In Monaco you quite often get accidents which happen at the top end of the field causing more trouble further back. Takuma Sato's engine blowing up in 2004 is an example of this. His engine let go on the run to Tabac and obscured the vision of those behind him. Several cars crashed, Fisichella rolled over Coulthard and a lot of chaos was caused. Again, a tight track with little or no run off area.

 

[YSSMAN]

I would dare to say that NASCAR's pit stops are far more important and technical than what they are in F1 racing, hands down. Depending on the track, what lap you pit can generally decide the outcome, as Michigan and California come to mind in this situation. I belive the current fuel-tank in NASCAR is a regulated 14-gallon unit, and I belive that gives you about 35 laps, or 70 miles at a place like Daytona.

But the most important thing about the pit stops in NASCAR is the collaborative effort of the pit crew. Everyone from the jack-man to the catch-can-man have to work together almost in a ballet of changing all four tires, filling up the tank, cleaning the window (sometimes tear-offs are used) and often times getting liquids to the driver. All of which must be done usually in less than 17 seconds, and even then that is kinda slow.

Drivers like Dale Jr. take pride in his pit crew, as I belive he won the McDonals/Poweraide pit competition (least ammount of time spent in the pits per race and overall) two or three years in a row.

...If I'm not mistaken, in F1 the cars have automatic jacks, correct? They also only have the center-locks correct? And for the most part, isn't there only one dude doing the fuel? So tell me, please, how that is more complicated than NASCAR which has one jackman who must lift the car himself, five-lugs on each wheel, two wheels per tire-guy (who also must work with the tire-carrier), and the gas man who often uses two fuel containers along with the catch-can-man...

BTW: How fast are most pit-stops for F1 cars? I belive the average for NASCAR is between 15-17 seconds, and I'm talking about four-tires and fuel maybe even with a wedge and spring-rubber adjustment...

---

Again, I'm not against F1 as I am a part-time fan, given how little I get to see of it in the US. But Schuey, I think, was a little out of line in his assement. I'm not picking on anyone here, but I do want to make a positive case for NASCAR if at all possible.

 

[amp88]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=904665232617946640

Watch from 45 seconds on.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8114575308512669968

edit: Yes, F1 cars have single, centre nut wheels. Usually 17 people in a pit crew (3 for each wheel (one for the gun, one to take off the old wheel and one to put on the new wheel), one front jack man, one rear jack man, two refuellers and a lollipop man). A good pit stop (4 tyres, possible front wing adjustment and enough fuel for 25-30 laps) should be under 9 seconds. Drivers may have their visors wiped by another member of the crew. Some of the teams use pneumatic jacks to lift the cars, but most of them don't.

I'd say F1 pit stops are more complex.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

But the most important thing about the pit stops in NASCAR is the collaborative effort of the pit crew. Everyone from the jack-man to the catch-can-man have to work together almost in a ballet of changing all four tires, filling up the tank, cleaning the window (sometimes tear-offs are used) and often times getting liquids to the driver. All of which must be done usually in less than 17 seconds, and even then that is kinda slow.

Drivers like Dale Jr. take pride in his pit crew, as I belive he won the McDonals/Poweraide pit competition (least ammount of time spent in the pits per race and overall) two or three years in a row.

...If I'm not mistaken, in F1 the cars have automatic jacks, correct? They also only have the center-locks correct? And for the most part, isn't there only one dude doing the fuel? So tell me, please, how that is more complicated than NASCAR which has one jackman who must lift the car himself, five-lugs on each wheel, two wheels per tire-guy (who also must work with the tire-carrier), and the gas man who often uses two fuel containers along with the catch-can-man...

BTW: How fast are most pit-stops for F1 cars? I belive the average for NASCAR is between 15-17 seconds, and I'm talking about four-tires and fuel maybe even with a wedge and spring-rubber adjustment...

Actually I belive the stops are usually 14 - 15 sec long and once you're into a 16 sec stop thats takin way to long. The fastest crew are usually doin the stops in the 13 sec range and I've seen a few 12 sec stops too.

I would expect F1 stops should take only 10 sec at most with how little it sounds they have to do.

 

[amp88]

I would expect F1 stops should take only 10 sec at most with how little it sounds they have to do.

Have you ever watched a modern F1 pit stop? I think you should take a look at those videos and educate yourself instead of just opening your mouth and spouting something.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'll admit that I'm impressed by the speed of F1, as I seem to remember them being a bit slower. Either way, they are both feats in their own right to take less than 20 seconds to replace all four tires, refuel, etc.

...My Dad would be happy to tell stories about the days where it would take minutes, not seconds, to do pitstops in NASCAR.

 

[Pebb]

well, i'm with good old schumy on this one.....sorry, but, NASCAR isn't in league with F1....

I don't like Schumacher much, but I agree with Schumacher on this one as well. Anyway if you want a challenge then you go for F1.

 

[amp88]

I'll admit that I'm impressed by the speed of F1, as I seem to remember them being a bit slower. Either way, they are both feats in their own right to take less than 20 seconds to replace all four tires, refuel, etc.

...My Dad would be happy to tell stories about the days where it would take minutes, not seconds, to do pitstops in NASCAR.

Indeed, both NASCAR and F1 pit stops are very impressive. We're agreed on that.

 

[luftrofl]

Ouch, my NASCAR pride...

I do respect the man as one of the better drivers who has ever lived, but I think he is wrong in his assment of NASCAR. Untill you try it, or see a race first-hand, most people will never understand it. It is quite unfortunate that so many people are biased against it, but I guess thats the same way people feel about F1 in America.

Schuey may complain that NASCAR isn't technological enough, but there are plenty of American fans who complain that F1 is packed with too-much technology.

...Someone get Dale Jr. on the phone, lets turn this into a real fight...

(lol)

I'm with him 100% if he's talking about NASCAR on TV, which is only slightly less boring to watch than golf(though I can't say I know too much about watching live oval races).

That, and Formula 1 is lightyears ahead of NASCAR in terms of development.

 

[RACECAR]

This is why I tend to hate F1 drivers in general. They have no clue what they are talknin about when they say Nascar drivers suck and Nascar cars suck. I don't here any Nascar guys goin around sayin F1 cars suck because the slightest little contact could possibly take them out of the race and that they don't race every week.

I give F1 drivers the repect they deserve as very good drivers but they seem to just be a bunch of stuck up people.

They have no clue what they are talknin about when they say Nascar drivers suck. well, so far I've only seen schumacher say something bout NASCAR.
Beside, Juan Pablo Montoya can't possibly be thinking the same thing if he is signed to drive for his former Champ car boss, Chip Ganassi.

 

[amp88]

This is why I tend to hate F1 drivers in general. They have no clue what they are talknin about when they say Nascar drivers suck and Nascar cars suck. I don't here any Nascar guys goin around sayin F1 cars suck because the slightest little contact could possibly take them out of the race and that they don't race every week.

I give F1 drivers the repect they deserve as very good drivers but they seem to just be a bunch of stuck up people.

Where have any F1 drivers said NASCAR drivers suck? Where have they said that NASCAR cars suck? You're "hating" them based on no evidence at all...

All he said was that he couldn't see the appeal of NASCAR, which he's entitled to say because it's his opinion and that NASCAR cars are heavy and low tech compared to F1 cars, which is true.

Are you saying that F1 cars suck because they're vulnerable to contact and can be broken fairly easily? I don't see the logic in that if you are. F1 is supposed to be a non-contact sport, the cars aren't built for bumping as NASCAR cars can be.

There are several reasons for not running an F1 event every weekend. The largest reason here is that in 2006 F1 races are going to take part in 18 different venues. Germany hosts two (European and German) and Italy arguably hosts two (San Marino and Italian), but the rest take part in different countries. Often the races are several thousand miles apart and all the hundreds of tonnes of F1 cars, equipment and spares have to be trucked or air freighted from one race to the next. There are several back to back race weekends this year, including Bahrain/Malaysia and Europe/Spain.

 

[east]

Um, I find more skill in NASCAR than Formula 1.

As said, the cars are very equal. In F1, you're biggest competitor falls out, that's it. You'll win as long as you don't screw up.
In NASCAR, 1 driver falls out, guess what! There's 20 more guys right on your ass waiting for you to **** up.

Pit strategies are much more difficult in NASCAR. Do not even try to start a comparison. Everyone likes to pit at or near the same time. This becomes a big problem entering and exiting. As I'm positive YSSMAN has seen, there have been MANY accidents where drivers have pulled out of their pits and clipped other drivers.

I also give skill in trying to minimize damage to NASCAR drivers after an accident. Unlike everytime I've seen a F1 car crash, it's usually very quick, over fast, and safety 99% guaranteed.
In NASCAR, you don't stop after a hit. You keep going and even if you can get the car to stop safely, the biggest priority is to get your car off the track as much as you can while in a spin out or whatever. Unlike F1, where if someone crashes, its usually a fast action and over quickly again, in NASCAR, everyone can still plow into you and before you know it, you're travelling sideways on the ground, in the air, or in a rollever at 100Mph.

Please show me a F1 race where a racer has crashed, and begun a series of chain reactions that is seen in NASCAR.

So NASCAR is more dangerous than F1, that doesnt mean there is more skill involved.

I've never been interested in NASCAR or any motorsport that runs on ovals, it holds no appeal to me and I dont see the skill in it at all. NASCAR and IRL are where people who arnt good enough to compete in F1 go.

 

[Gabkicks]

^totally untrue and you come off as completely ignorant but willing to contribute and show just how little you understand about nascar and irl

 

[Roo]

NASCAR and IRL are where people who arnt good enough to compete in F1 go.

2006 Nextel Cup Series Drivers. Number of former F1 drivers: 0.

2006 Busch Series Drivers. Number of former F1 drivers: 0.

2006 Craftsman Truck Series Drivers. Number of fomer F1 drivers: 0.

2006 Indy Racing League Drivers. Number of former F1 drivers: 0.

Just in the interest of comparison:

2006 Champ Car drivers. Number of former F1 drivers: 2.

2006 ALMS Drivers (hover over "Competition" on the top bar, PDFs with driver lists are there). Former F1 drivers: 12, 2 of whom only tested.

You can't say NASCAR is better than F1, or vice versa, any more than you can say Fangio was better than Schumacher. Both did certin things very well, and others less so, but both are so different with very little in common that you can't sensibly compare them.

 

[McLaren]

That's a matter of opinion. You say most people pit at or near the same time in NASCAR, so there's not really a lot of difference in the weights of the cars due to fuel. You can't second-guess someone else's strategy because you'll all be in in the same two lap window. In F1, you can have a field where some people are on one stop strategies, some are on two and some on three. There can be a 50 kilo difference in the weights of the cars and you could have to change your race strategy during the race to match a competitor or try to gain an advantage. AFAIK, that doesn't happen in NASCAR (though you could say that yellow flags cause everyone to jump into the pits, but that happens in most motorsport). Pit lane accidents also happen in F1 (people being released into other driver's path, cars not stopping in time and taking out mechanics). I remember seeing an F1 season review (1982 I think), where one driver went out through the crowd of mechanics of the team in front so he could accelerate in a straight line and not have to swerve into the main pitlane. There also used to be no pit-lane speed limits in F1 (up until 1994, when an accident in the pitlane at Imola lead to the introduction of limits). It's just my opinion, but I think strategy and pitting in F1 is more hectic and involved than NASCAR.



I can see where you're coming from with this one, but I'd say it's more to do with the run off areas in F1. In NASCAR if you have an accident, chances are you're going to go up the track and towards the wall (on an oval course, anyway) because of what direction you were travelling in before you had the accident. This means that you've got a car travelling at 150+mph sideways along the track covering a large portion of the racing line, until it gets collected by the pack or slides down the banking to the bottom. In F1, when you have a crash there's usually a lot of run-off area so either the crashed car goes off the track and settles at the side or the following cars can take avoiding action round the outside. I'd say this was more due to track design than the cars or drivers. Of course, with grippier tyres, F1 cars will slow down more quickly than NASCAR cars when sliding down the track sideways.



Belgium 1998 is a good example of that. Plenty of accidents in the middle and back of the pack because of an accident up ahead. Note the track is very narrow with little run off area, as I suggested above. 5 cars (out of a field of 22 starters) made it through unscathed.

In Monaco you quite often get accidents which happen at the top end of the field causing more trouble further back. Takuma Sato's engine blowing up in 2004 is an example of this. His engine let go on the run to Tabac and obscured the vision of those behind him. Several cars crashed, Fisichella rolled over Coulthard and a lot of chaos was caused. Again, a tight track with little or no run off area.

Fair enough.

The only thing is the video. The F1 drivers go through that in what looks like rain, though it probably still would have happened rain or not. LOTS of tires rolling down the hill though.

 

[McLaren]

So NASCAR is more dangerous than F1, that doesnt mean there is more skill involved.

I've never been interested in NASCAR or any motorsport that runs on ovals, it holds no appeal to me and I dont see the skill in it at all. NASCAR and IRL are where people who arnt good enough to compete in F1 go.

Yes, yes it is. An F1 crash is over fairly quickly, and very safe.

In NASCAR, pileups are dangerous, caused many deaths, many cars have shot into the air over 10ft. Safety is there, but years ago, a neckbrace is now used after Earnhardt's death.

There is a lot more skill involved for certain parts. It takes a very great amount of skill to bring a wrecked car from the wall off the track, and for the drivers to dodge. I find racing takes more skill as well.

F1 seems pretty boring today. There's usually only 1-2, maybe 3 competitors on the leader. If say, 1 or 2 are to fall out, he's won the race given he doesn't crash, or have problems. It doesn't work like that in NASCAR. If your 3 closest guys fallout, there's still a bunch more behind you. These guys aren't to afraid to even give nudges.

This quote also amuses me. If NASCAR drivers aren't good enough, explain Mr. Gordon's time in a Formula 1 car compared to the F1 car's driver?

All these men have skills to race in every other. Over the years, they've accumulated basic racing knowledge, IE, braking points, turns, when to pass, when not to, etc. etc. After a few weeks of testing, using these basic skills, and getting a feel for "xx" car, they could probably start competing in little to no time very soon.

 

[Dave A]

The fact that NASCAR features closed body cars and they're all more even than F1 cars doesn't mean NASCAR is more technical or takes more skill than F1. Sure the fact thatyour all in similarly powered cars means that you have to drive better than the other guy, but at the end of the day, having to learn Monaco at 200mph is a lot harder than having to learn Talledega at 200mph, the fact that you can bump each other to a degree in NASCAR is a non-issue, you can do that in the Renault Clio trophy and I don't see you saying that takes more skill because of it.

Crashes are also a non-issue, when theres a big crash on an F1 track the drivers have to do well to avoid hitting one of the cars or the debris. Your not talking about 1 dog and a bigger dog here, NASCAR and F1 are amost polar opposites, one features the latest in technological advancements, F1 cars are the ultimate racing cars, theres no deying that. NASCAR on the other hand does away with the technology to a degree, instead concentrating on making the cars as equal as possible. Neither are easy, and I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to say one requires more skill than the other.

At the end of the day, if your a driver who relishes the challenge of hitting perfect apexes and learning complex track layouts then your probably not going to enjoy NASCAR, if on the other hand you preffer the concept of 40 guys racing in fairly equal machines, where the track becomes less of an issue so it basically boils down to your ability and that of your pit crews verses theirs, then you will probably enjoy NASCAR. Theres two very different skill sets involved and two very different approaches to motorsport. It's not a question of the NASCAR driver did okay in an F1 car or vice versa, it's a question of which aspects of motosport you relish the challenge of.

 

[YSSMAN]

So NASCAR is more dangerous than F1, that doesnt mean there is more skill involved.

I've never been interested in NASCAR or any motorsport that runs on ovals, it holds no appeal to me and I dont see the skill in it at all. NASCAR and IRL are where people who arnt good enough to compete in F1 go.

Ya know, it is rather unfortunate that folks like you can't atleast hold a somewhat open mind about things like NASCAR. Your gross overgeneralization of both IRL and NASCAR is not only completely incorect, but pretty ignortant as well.

---

I completely agree with L4S about the differences between NASCAR and F1. It really doesn't have much to do with skill, more as a difference of preferences in racing. Generally, I love all types of racing (Drifting Excluded), and NASCAR and F1 are generally my favorites when it comes to most circumstances.

Most hardcore NASCAR fans aren't going to get along with most hardcore F1 fans on some levels, and thats allright. We "backwoods" Americans like our sport, you like yours, and I'm fine with that.

...Atleast we can all agree that FIA-GT and SCCA SPEED World Challenge kicks ass...

 

[Duke]

I think NASCAR is somewhat entertaining (I like nearly ALL motorsports, regardless), but Forumla 1 driving seems much more exciting and requires more skill than making left hand turns at the same speed an F1 car takes chicanes and hairpins. There's also nothing like that start of an F1 race.

Ever actually watched a NASCAR race? On the superspeedways they're over 180 mph in the turns and 210 mph+ in the straights. Speeds were over 220 which is part of the reason why they introduced restrictor plates. That's bloody fast for a simple tube framed silhouette car.

You tell me that's the same speed an F1 car takes a chicane and I'll write you up in the "ludicrous claims" thread.

That being said, I don't usually watch NASCAR either, but I make it a point to watch the Sears Point and Watkins Glen races every year. I wish the cars went to Road America like the trucks do.

Frankly, while I enjoy F1, the excessive technology leaves me cold. To me the cars aren't understandable as 'cars' any more - even looking at the aero forms, they seem camouflaged by their own shape like some bizarre undersea creature. They sure don't look like cars any more.

NASCAR cars, however (albeit nothing like "stock" for the last 15-20 years) are at least similar as racecars to something I could build up in my garage. There are lots of "stock" classes that involve nothing more than stripping the interior, welding in a cage, and putting on some race rubber. I like the possibility of getting my hands dirty and getting out there too, and F1 is just way too rarified up there in the ivory starter's tower to allow the slightest bit of that feeling.

Maybe that's why F1 fans tend to love supercars? The 'unobtainium' factor? I don't know.

 

[east]

Number of current F1 drivers who are former NASCAR drivers - 0

Number of current F1 drivers who are former IRL drivers - 1

Number of current NASCAR drivers who wish they were in F1 - the lot

Number of current IRL drivers who wish they were in F1 - the lot

If NASCAR drivers are more skilled than F1 drivers then the F1 teams would waste no time in signing these guys up to race their cars. Im not saying NASCAR drivers are skill-less, im saying they arnt at the level of F1 drivers. Maybe if they were as good as F1 drivers there wouldnt be so many accidents in NASCAR.

There is a lot more skill involved for certain parts. It takes a very great amount of skill to bring a wrecked car from the wall off the track, and for the drivers to dodge. I find racing takes more skill as well.

One of the skills in racing is to not crash in the first place, if these guys are good at driving wrecked cars, they are obviously getting too much practice at it.

This quote also amuses me. If NASCAR drivers aren't good enough, explain Mr. Gordon's time in a Formula 1 car compared to the F1 car's driver?

after driving that car I realized that I needed my left leg to be a lot stronger and my neck to be a lot stronger because these cars are pulling so many G's under, not just cornering, but the braking as well. And you have to be in a totally different physical shape in these cars than you do in our cars.

He completed 10 laps, by the end of which his neck was in some pain from the G forces, there is no way he could have kept the pace up for the entire race if he was already hurting after 10 laps. 1 second off over the coarse of 1 lap looks impressive enough, a second a lap off the pace over an entire race distance would not look very good at all.

 

[McLaren]

Of course, over time he would get used to those forces. He's used to G-Forces of NASCAR. I highly doubt that Montoya will get as many wins in NASCAR, despite his higher level of racing.

And you can not prove what drivers wish they were in F1.
Most of them do not. They make far too much money from their wins to leave a sport, and start racing in another sport.

And what I meant by "damaged cars" is the ability to manuever off the track. Accidents happen regardless of car. F1 accidents happen nearly every race. If NASCAR was as spread out, it'd be the same.

 

[amp88]

Ever actually watched a NASCAR race? On the superspeedways they're over 180 mph in the turns and 210 mph+ in the straights. Speeds were over 220 which is part of the reason why they introduced restrictor plates. That's bloody fast for a simple tube framed silhouette car.

You tell me that's the same speed an F1 car takes a chicane and I'll write you up in the "ludicrous claims" thread.

Well, Eau Rouge could almost be classified as a chicane at a push and that's taken at 180+ mph



The Audi-S at the Nurburgring circuit is also another very quick chicane, with a mid-corner speed of about 155mph and an exit of about 165mph. Other fast chicanes are at Magny Cours, both the Imola and Nurburgring being roughly 140mph in the middle. The 'standard' speed for a chicane with little or no downforce would be about 60mph or so.

 

[JohnBM01]

I had a chance to think about this a bit further. I sort of agree and disagree with M. Schumacher. Let it be known that I am not the world's biggest NASCAR fan. Having said this, here is my analysis of all this. Get ready for a LOT of material to look at.

This paragraph is why I agree with what Michael Schumacher is saying. Part of me asks, "why is Montoya going to a series where you're turning left more than 80% of a full season?" But another part of me asks, "wants to return to 'racing?' What's that stuff he's doing right now?" I'm sick of NASCAR, but I don't exactly hate it. I have always thought of passing as a tactic and not a marketing tool. I probably thought Montoya could have joined the IRL so he can stay within open-wheel cars, but race machines not really as technologically-advanced as F1 cars. Montoya's a hell of a driver wherever he goes. The one thing I've hated about all of this is people being COMPLETELY prideful of NASCAR in saying that it sent a message to Formula One about what racing is about and should be about. What would have happened if Montoya wanted to go from Formula One to American tractor pulling? People would be like "Montoya's just wasting his talent. Career suicide." I've always made an issue about some whiny race fans in American racing. So imagine if Dale Earnhardt Jr. was going to win the Daytona 500 when Juan Pablo Montoya bump drafts him and forces a spin (think of what fans thought of Dale Earnhardt Sr. spinning out Terry LaBonte on the last lap of the Britsol night race in 1999) to win. People will be like "he should go back to F1," or "Montoya's just like Danica Patrick- can't win a race. It's something Montoya's going to have to deal with. I think the IndyCar Series MIGHT be a better fit for Montoya. Think of what boost Tony George's IndyCar Series would have if Montoya went to Indy Cars rather than stock cars. He'd probably find more prestige in Indy Cars than stock cars. At least he'll be in a series that already has PLENTY of international influence. He could have returned to Champ Car and stay with road course. But Ganassi would have to field cars in three series as opposed to just two.

This is why I disagree with Michael Schumacher. I would watch F1 over NASCAR, but I don't think NASCAR is completely a disappointment. I don't hate Montoya for making this move. I'm actually shocked like many other people. From a kind perspective, I don't think Michael Schumacher has as much of oval skills as Montoya. Juan Pablo Montoya has been a graduate of the Skip Barber Racing School(?). So he knows a thing or two about American courses. It isn't like he's jumpshifting to some series he's never had any experience in (much like Marcus Ambrose in NASCAR Trucks). As much as I know, Schumacher has mostly been used to European road racing while Montoya has done a little of North American action as well as European courses. Schumacher isn't proud of an F1 driver to NASCAR probably because he found very little to be interested or intrigued with racing in NASCAR. I normally say that there are some times in which you have to defend RACING as opposed to loyalty in a certain series. One of those times is when a sports reporter knocks racing in saying that racing isn't as exciting as watching an American football game as a team has a chance to win with one second left and is Fourth and Goal on the 1-yard line. This isn't one of those times. Schumacher's used to faster machines with all the great technology and trinkets available. It's still racing whether you like NASCAR or not.

Finally, an off-topic shout out. Hanz ??? is a Michelin Tire guy essential to the success of Renault. I'm sure us Southeast Texas racing fans should give him some love because he's from Houston, Texas. Yeah. The Michelin Renault guy is a Houston boy. Now I want Renault to win PLENTY of titles with one of our own Southeast Texas boys ! My initial post was a bit too big. So expect to see me add on to my overall view of this in my next post.

 

[amp88]

I agree with you in part, John, especially about the stigma or prejudice against Montoya, the outsider. I don't think he'll be well received by the majority of other drivers or fans.

On your hopes for Michelin to win several more championships you're out of luck there. Michelin are leaving F1 at the end of this season, so unless Hanz moves to Bridgestone he won't be having any more F1 success soon.