No. Not NASCAR. Anything BUT NASCAR.
I will concede, that there are some relatively talented drivers in NASCAR, and that it does take some nerve to drive 180 miles per hour only a couple inches from a wall. There is a lot of strategy in NASCAR, and it takes a bit of endurance to sit in the car for several hours, and I can only imagine the frustration of only being able to turn left. But no, I am not a fan. My issues with NASCAR are numerous, and deep-seated. Here are a couple:
• They call it "stock car racing". It's not a "stock car" There is nothing stock about it. It didn't come from the factory. In fact, there is a very slim chance that there is anything on it that came from the production line in which the car it is supposed to represent is built, much less that manufacturer. Engine blocks might be of the same breed, but beyond that - aftermarket cams, forged pistons, all kinds of go fast bits that would never come with the product put out by the manufacturer. Yes, once upon a time, the cars that they ran were based on street-legal vehicles, but no more, and not for a long time. Change it to NACAR or something.
• Toyota races in NASCAR alongside Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and whomever else. They change so much it's hard to keep track. But, I assure you, a Toyota Camry is not available as a V8 powered RWD car with a solid rear axle.
• There are now four races a year when they have to turn right. Really? I understand that the best possible arrangement for spectator viewing is a stadium, but go to ANY rally course, and you'll find nut-jobs wanting to stand ON the course, just to get a glimpse of the cars. People standing near creek crossings just waiting to get splashed. This number has also doubled in the last ten years, but these cars are still nowhere near equipped to run road courses on a regular basis. Their design is truly one-sided.
Compare NASCAR to WRC:
WRC is a format of Rally racing where the course is usually a naturally-existing series of roads, trails, and paths that are taken on by cars specially equipped for racing, and the harsh environment. By the regulations, the driver has never driven that car on that course, the car must retain 10% of its stock form, and rather than passing cars on the course, with everyone starting from the same place at the same time, each driver competes against the clock. There are a number of "stages" or "legs" in any one rally, and the driver with the lowest time completing all of them, including penalties for servicing their car for too long, going off course, or any other offense.
• Get a NASCAR driver in the co-pilot's seat with someone like Colin McRae, Sebastian Loeb (whom I do not like), Travis Pastrana, or even Tanner Foust (whom I HATE), and they would sit there screaming, wetting themselves as they go 160mph sideways down a dirt road no wider than their car with trees on both sides of the road, not really sure about what's coming around the next bend.
Something like this, or this, or even this.
• A WRC car actually starts off as a production vehicle of the brand it claims to be. It's in the rulebook. NASCAR vehicles are built from the ground up from tubes, and sheet-metal that has never even been to Detroit. Check out this video of a WRC car being built, and another of a Rally America car.
• WRC drivers don't know the course, their co-pilot does. They have driven it in their "recce" cars, but things change - the driver before might have trailed some gravel onto a twisty bit of tarmac. It might have rained, or snowed. A change of tire compound or tread design might shave a bunch of time, but there are no pits. If you get a flat, you stop on the side of the road, and you change the tire. If you have an incident, and you can keep driving, you do - bumper hanging off, wheels broken, glass broken and all. It is the Co-pilot's job to call out the upcoming turns as they go along. NASCAR teams spend tons of money on testing and development, and practice practice practice on one particular course. By the time the race starts, they've nearly driven the same distance already.
• WRC races in the rain. They race in snow. They race in mud. They race on gravel. They race in dirt. They race under all five of these conditions in one leg of the rally!
Compare NASCAR to F1:
I think that F1 is one of the most hardcore forms of racing there ever was. The budget for these teams is just mind blowing. The rules are explicit, and technical, and every year, as rules creep up to even the fields, the Engineers go to work in wind tunnels, and on dynos, and in chemistry labs to find the loophole that makes less drag, more downforce, more traction, more power, quicker shifts, traction control, quicker pits, better fuel efficiency, etc.
• Granted, you can't go buy the V-10 out of a McLaren Mercedes F1 car for yourself, but the manufacturers involved actually make the motor. They design it from the ground up, and spend millions of dollars on developing it, tuning it, and getting it to do what they want it to. It is their motor. 100%. It turn ump-teen thousand RPM, and develops several hundred horsepower.
• Drivers regularly experience lateral forces approaching 3g in turns without banking.
• Acceleration faster than you can blink. How about 0-60 in 1.9 seconds?
• Fuel, tires, a drink, and a wipe of the visor in under 10 seconds.
• They race in the rain. Tell me what NASCAR drivers know about "wets" or "intermediates".
Compare NASCAR to LeMans:
LeMans is a legendary, and very specific form of endurance racing. Endurance racing takes place in many forms in many locations, but basically, a number of drivers campaign one car, and race for a specified period of time, usually 12 hours or 24. The first to cross the finish line after the clock runs out is the winner. Cars are specially designed for this, and the money and knowledge backing the teams is nothing sort of F1 epic. This year, Audi and Pugeot were having themselves an epic battle. They had each won once in the last two years, and with new equipment, they were eager to show just what they'd learned.
• 24 hours. I know SPEED channel is so in love with NASCAR that we get 24 hours of _coverage_ for every NASCAR race, but there's really, only 3-4 hours of racing. For LeMans, we got 25, but it happens once a year, and there actually ARE 24 hours of racing. After 24 hours, over 400 laps on an 8.4 mile course, the race was down to a 20 second gap.
• These cars go just as fast as NASCAR cars, but then they turn. It takes a "stock" car about a week to reach top speed, and these guys were doing it 4 times a lap, inside of 3:30 min.
• Complete fuel, four tires, a drink bottle, a window clean, and changing the 'data card' (used for highly detailed telemetry recording) in 20 seconds, and they aren't allowed to even touch the car until fueling is complete.
• Corvette started life as a Corvette.
• Porsche started life as a Porsche.
• Ferrari started life as a Ferrari.
• One of the commercials that ran during the broadcast better tells the woes of a LeMans driver. I give you Allan McNish, and Exhibit A who during the early part of the race, walked away from this.
• They race in the rain.
I'll grant you, that I don't know everything there is to know about NASCAR, because I don't much care. That there is some talent that got sucked into that pool is unfortunate. NASCAR is to Auto Racing what the WWF was to wrestling in the 80's; what Don King is to boxing. And I am frustrated by the first response I get every time I say that I like Auto Racing - "You mean, like NASCAR?" No.
Harsh? Yeah. But I've done a bit of homework, and I have my reasons. I'm entitled.
One more thought -in WRC, and LeMans, even a little from F1, what the manufacturers learn from racing goes directly into developing smarter, safer, more efficient automobiles. Tell me the same can be said from NASCAR. Headlight technology has benefited immensely from it, I'm sure.
Do you like auto racing? What kind?
No comments:
Post a Comment