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

[Earth]

Which is the easiest to do for a driver?

Transfer from Formula 1 to NASCAR or NASCAR to Formula 1?

Some stats:

WEIGHT

Formula 1: 1,333 lbs
NASCAR: 3,500 lbs

POWER

Formula 1: 750
NASCAR: 775

Computers

Formula 1: Yes
NASCAR: Illegal

Tires

Formula 1: Rears wider and taller
NASCAR: Same sizes on front and back


Michele Rahal's thoughts:



Michele Rahal just doesnt get it.

First off, it probably takes what, a couple of hours with an engineer and some track testing time to get use to a F1 wheel?

As for physical fitness, take a look at stock car driver Carl Edwards

Do the Formula 1 guys look like that?

The illustration of a DC3 and Fighter jet was completely wrong. A fighter jet is overpowered and very manuverable like a F1 car, and while it may be faster then a DC3 it is by far more manuverable etc then a DC3. With a DC3 it is easier to stall etc etc. So just because a F1 car is faster, doesn't mean its harder to drive

It kind of reminds me of when Jeff Gordon drove Montoya's F1 car, he said it was the best driving car he ever drove, it braked, it turned great, it did everything he wanted to do. He was a second off of Montoyas time after just 3 laps. Gordon added that the last second must mean having to push your body to the limit, not just the car.

If it was only that simple Michele Rahal. Just because Formula 1 cars are faster and are full of technology doesn't mean a stock car driver would struggle to come to grips with them than a F1 driver would to a stockcar

How has Juan Montoya faired in his transition to NASCAR?

Remember this is someone who won the Indy 500 and the Daytona 24 hours in his first attempt.

Through first 39 NASCAR races: 1 win, 0 poles, 2 podiums

Through first 39 Formula 1 races: 1 win, 10 poles, 12 podiums

I'd say a Formula 1 driver would struggle the most to be competitive in NASCAR because:

- 3-4 hour long races compared to F1's 90 minute sprint races

- Spending all day in traffic. You're simply not running one hot lap after another like you are in F1. Traffic is a real chore and problem, and at 160mph + average speeds aero problems caused by traffic can upset the handling of your car

- There are no rumble strips or grass runoffs on the ovals, you make a mistake or push to hard and you hit concrete, something alot of openwheel rookies in stock cars do alot

- A stock car weights 3x as much as an F1 car and has far less aerodynamic grip. That means a stock car is less responsive and can be far more evil than a F1 car.

- Formula 1 cars usually have no problems with tire wear, but in stock car racing conserving your tires is key. You can't push the car for 4 hours like Montoya tried to do in his rookie season or you'll end up in the wall alot like he did

- 36 stock car races in a season, 1 every week, compared to 18 Formula 1 races, once per two weeks. NASCAR has a much more demanding schedule

Ask Jacques Villeneuve how forgiving a low grip stock car can be on Daytona's bumpy high banks



Even at NASCAR's easiest track Talladega Villeneuve managed to tag the wall several times

I'm just going to say this, if I were to hire a driver, would I hire a driver from karting, a feeder sport to F1,


or sprint cars, a feeder motorsport for stock cars


I'm taking the sprint car driver everytime. Look at the control, fighting to keep control every single second

 

[JohnBM01]

This is easy. NASCAR to Formula 1. You're racing a much more sophisticated race car which requires more incredible fitness than piloting a heavy stock car around an oval or a road course. Think about it from a competitive standpoint as well. You can take some blows in NASCAR and still have a chance of finishing high. But in Formula One, you can't (and I always say this) NASCAR your way through road racing- especially Formula 1. I think it's so much easier to screw up in Formula One than it is in NASCAR because of the super-light race cars and sometimes fragile parts to an F1 car. I always say that one of the toughest things to do is to in anyone's racing career is win a Formula One race. NASCAR is easier than F1.

On the other hand, a transistion from Formula One to NASCAR doesn't guarantee that you can spank a bunch of 30-somethings from North Carolina used to oval racing. You mostly race technical road course in Formula One, sometimes in the rain. In NASCAR, you have much fewer road racing events. So it begins to be tougher trying to (in my view, no total disrespect) step down from an F1 car and pilot a NASCAR stock car. I still remember the "Trading Paint" in which Jeff Gordon and Juan Pablo Montoya swapped rides around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. My man Jeff Gordon looked pretty cool in that F1 car. An example of F1 to NASCAR really worked when Juan Pablo Montoya won in NASCAR road racing events. He has yet to rule ovals, but his road racing expertise came in handy. That, and his ability to pilot a NASCAR stock car and adapt to new surroundings. And naturally, drivers mostly accustomed to road races will struggle at ovals. I'm not saying that Juan Pablo Montoya is completely new to ovals. He ran ovals in Champ Car for 1999 and 2000. And uh, who won the Indy 500 in 2000? I believe his name was... Juan Pablo Montoya.

To me, I feel the transition from NASCAR to F1 is much tougher. I say this on a standpoint of understanding other racing series and not having the typical pro-American mentality where NASCAR drivers are seen as the world's best drivers where there are much better talent in sportscar racing, rally racing, and various touring car disciplines. American people say going from NASCAR to F1 is stepping down simply because of the quality of racing between NASCAR and F1. Hell, F1 is a much greater challenge than NASCAR no matter what any closed-minded, pro-American racing fan thinks. So mark me down for "NASCAR to F1" as a tougher transition. And I went through all of this without mentioning the stereotype or generalization that there is "no passing" in F1.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Until we see a NASCAR driver make the transition to F1, this is pointless. And I predict that that will never happen.

 

[Perfect Balance]

F1 to NASCAR is much, much easier.

Nascar doesn't require near the knowledge, skill, smoothness, speed, anything as much as F1 does.

I don't even see how someone can question this, F1 is the fastest overall form of motorsports in the world, obviously it's a bit more difficult than NASCAR. A F1 driver going to NASCAR is basically downgrading, and it's been done before.

EDIT: To me, all that fighting to keep the car under control just says 2 things. The car sucks, they need better engineers, or 2, the driver sucks. Being smooth is the key to going fast, and they just aren't doing a good job at it.

EDIT #2: I might get flamed for that, but it's a fact, being smooth is essential to getting the most out of your car and the driver.

EDIT #3: An article on the fitness of F1 drivers.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/1125

 

[Studentdriver]

I, for one, don't care, and I'll have you all know that I've requested this thread to be closed. All of you have seen (or started) threads like this before, and I'll be damned if you claim ignorance as to where it's headed. I know some people won't be able to control themselves, so hopefully this will be closed in a timely manner.

 

[Earth]

This is easy. NASCAR to Formula 1. You're racing a much more sophisticated race car which requires more incredible fitness than piloting a heavy stock car around an oval or a road course. Think about it from a competitive standpoint as well. You can take some blows in NASCAR and still have a chance of finishing high. But in Formula One, you can't (and I always say this) NASCAR your way through road racing- especially Formula 1. I think it's so much easier to screw up in Formula One than it is in NASCAR because of the super-light race cars and sometimes fragile parts to an F1 car. I always say that one of the toughest things to do is to in anyone's racing career is win a Formula One race. NASCAR is easier than F1.

Scott Speed was in F1 for a while driving those sophisticated physically demanding machines with his boney butt, and where is he now? A 5th tier stock car series. So much for great reflexes etc etc

A F1 car may be more sophisticated, but ask a F1 guy what wedge or track bar is. There's alot to learn about stock cars as well

You can scrape the wall in NASCAR and finish high, but you can also run off course and bounce over curbs and grass in F1 and still finish high as well.

Formula 1 cars may be more fragile, but how often do you see top Sprint Cup drivers beatin' and bangin'? Top drivers from all motorsport take care of their car.

As for it being hard to win a F1 race I would agree, considering only 4 drivers have a realistic shot every race.

In Formula 1 if you get pole position you just increased your chances of winning dramaticly because it is very hard to pass.

As for NASCAR, if you do not drive for the top 3 teams, you almost have no shot. I for one think winning a NASCAR race is considerably tougher then winning an F1 race.

Why?

5. You're racing vs 42 drivers in stock cars, not 21 in F1
4. Strategy is extremely important in oval racing, moreso than F1. A bad call with a few laps to go can ruin your race even if you have the fastest car.
3. NASCAR has events that run from day into night, which introduces great tempature changes that can change the handling of the car
2. There are 10-15 drivers every NASCAR race who have a realistic chance of winning, compared to a mere handfull in F1
1. Miko Salo should have won the German GP. After being a backmarker for years he is given a ride at Ferrari, and in his first few races was leading the German GP but was told to pull over at the end for Eddie Irvine. Proof its about the car

On the other hand, a transistion from Formula One to NASCAR doesn't guarantee that you can spank a bunch of 30-somethings from North Carolina used to oval racing. You mostly race technical road course in Formula One, sometimes in the rain. In NASCAR, you have much fewer road racing events. So it begins to be tougher trying to (in my view, no total disrespect) step down from an F1 car and pilot a NASCAR stock car.

You are implying road racing is tougher than oval racing. I disagree. Oval racing is just as tough if not tougher. Go ahead, laugh. But the truth is oval racing turns are usually negotiated at a much higher speed than a roadcourse and in thick traffic. Usually on a road course you're just running hot laps by yourself, not so on an oval

It may be a step down from F1 to NASCAR, but I have to agree with A.J. Foyt who said F1 is more of a manufacturer's battle than it is a driver's battle. That's why he never raced F1.

To me, I feel the transition from NASCAR to F1 is much tougher. I say this on a standpoint of understanding other racing series and not having the typical pro-American mentality where NASCAR drivers are seen as the world's best drivers where there are much better talent in sportscar racing, rally racing, and various touring car disciplines. American people say going from NASCAR to F1 is stepping down simply because of the quality of racing between NASCAR and F1. Hell, F1 is a much greater challenge than NASCAR no matter what any closed-minded, pro-American racing fan thinks. So mark me down for "NASCAR to F1" as a tougher transition. And I went through all of this without mentioning the stereotype or generalization that there is "no passing" in F1.

I'm not saying NASCAR drivers are the best drivers in the world, I'm talking about which transition would be tougher.

To me, the great 'challenge' of F1 is showing the top teams you're good enough to get a seat with them, and then having enough technical awareness to help develop the car and set it up.

Nascar doesn't require near the knowledge, skill, smoothness, speed, anything as much as F1 does.

I don't even see how someone can question this, F1 is the fastest overall form of motorsports in the world, obviously it's a bit more difficult than NASCAR. A F1 driver going to NASCAR is basically downgrading, and it's been done before.

Skill...Tell me, which would you rather do, hurl a F1 car 190mph into a first turn hairpin full of runoff and sandtraps or hurl a stockcar 205mph into turn 1 at pocono with a concrete wall 40 feet to your right? Both take skill, and I wouldn't say one takes more than the other.

As for those saying F1 drivers have transfered to stock cars before...I will tell you that's only because there are 43 seats available in stock cars, trust me, if there were only 22 ala F1, Montoya, Villeneuve etc would have never got a shot

Actually the IRL is the fastest form of motorsport, does that make it the most difficult?

I'm seeing a trend, alot tend to think like Michele Rahal, that is to think since a F1 car is faster than a stock car and is full of fancy electronics it's automaticly tougher to transition to than a stockcar.

Look, Jeff Burton, a NASCAR driver, and Juan Montoya, former F1 ace, talked about this very subject and agreed the transition from F1 to NASCAR is tougher. I think we should let the pros decide.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

^^ A NASCAR driver is not fit enough for F1. In fact, not even F1 drivers are fit enough. They are some of fittest athletes in the world, including marathon runners and tour de france riders, and they are still not fit enough to withstand the tremendous forces in F1. Name one NASCAR driver fit enough to compete. And consider this also; Montoya basicly quit F1, because he was not fit enough to compete with the others. And I dare say that he is probably the fittest NASCAR driver today. So basically, the transition from NASCAR to F1 is impossible, unless you find a NASCAR driver athletic enough.

And F1 IS the fastest motorsport in the world. An IRL car can not keep up on a roadcourse.

 

[Earth]

^^ A NASCAR driver is not fit enough for F1. In fact, not even F1 drivers are fit enough. They are some of fittest athletes in the world, including marathon runners and tour de france riders, and they are still not fit enough to withstand the tremendous forces in F1. Name one NASCAR driver fit enough to compete. And consider this also; Montoya basicly quit F1, because he was not fit enough to compete with the others. And I dare say that he is probably the fittest NASCAR driver today. So basically, the transition from NASCAR to F1 is impossible, unless you find a NASCAR driver athletic enough.

And F1 IS the fastest motorsport in the world. An IRL car can not keep up on a roadcourse.

From the first post

I'd say that stock car driver (Carl Edwards) is fit enough, isn't he? And he's not the only ripped stock car driver. Sure there are big boys in stock cars like Tony Stewart, but the newer, younger crowd is supremely fit

 

[Mt. Lynx]

From the first post

I'd say that stock car driver (Carl Edwards) is fit enough, isn't he? And he's not the only ripped stock car driver. Sure there are big boys in stock cars like Tony Stewart, but the newer, younger crowd is supremely fit

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.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Just about the only thing that F1 and NASCAR have in common is that they are the most popular motorsport in their prime market. Otherwise, they're completely incomparable. Both formulae are incredibly intricate and complex. Why is it that only four teams on the current F1 grid have won a race ever? Why is it that Jimmie Johnson's chief engineer can turn a lump of turd at 75% race distance into a winner at the end, time after time?

Yes, I suspect that F1 drivers have difficulty understanding the intricacies of track bar and wedge adjustment during races, but then I suspect that NASCAR drivers would struggle with the in-car adjustments of F1. Both series have highly complex suspension systems that require deep understanding in order to be able to go fast, but F1 adds a huge aero element to this.

As for the physicality, I think that both series demand drivers to be fit and strong, but probably in different ways. It does seem that NASCAR is slightly more tolerant of a burger-and-fries habit than F1, and it does seem that F1 is a more aerobic sport than NASCAR, but to be honest, you've got to be pretty fit to make it to the end of both series' long races.

My conclusion is that the old adage of Stirling Moss (If you're quick, you can be quick in anything) is less relevant today than ever, because each and every top-line racing formula is massively specialised. You can't jump from one to the other even within-category (such as BTCC to DTM or DTM to NASCAR) and expect to be world-beating, let alone jumping from the very pinnacle of open-wheel racing to the most competitive closed-cockpit series.

 

[TwinTurbos94]

And F1 IS the fastest motorsport in the world. An IRL car can not keep up on a roadcourse.

...actually Landspeed racing and NHRA drag racing our ALOT faster, but if you're talking about w/ turns then yeah.




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.


Oh yeah about the sprint car vid.

EDIT: To me, all that fighting to keep the car under control just says 2 things. The car sucks, they need better engineers, or 2, the driver sucks. Being smooth is the key to going fast, and they just aren't doing a good job at it.

Watch his wheels, while the car is sideways, he is feathering the throttle while trying to keep a good straight countersteer. It may not look smooth, but at 160+ mph it is.

 

[RACECAR]

I would think since we are yet to see anyone go from Nascar to any other motorsport(At least that I'm not aware of), F1 to NASCAR. I feel that comparing fitness for both series is quite useless seeing as the drivers are fit for differing purposes:

F1 fitness - Mainly from the enormous G-forces constintly at work from the quick acceleration

NASCAR fitness - Mainly from controlling a heavy car and making it turn on many differing track configurations.

As for skill, I think it takes considerably equal amount to have cat-like reflexes for F1 and to Negotiate the traffic constintly in motion in NASCAR.

Basically, The two are worlds apart with equality in some aspects and I think comparing them does no justice really without you yourself being in the driver seat. Only then can you make the definate statement that Its much more difficult or much more easy to race in one then the other.

 

[Year.Zero]

Until NASCAR drivers learn to turn right, it will always be F1 to NASCAR.

This should pretty much be a unanimous agreement, however; JohnBM01—you may have mixed up (grammatically) your initial stance as it contradicts the points you later make.

I would think since we are yet to see anyone go from Nascar to any other motorsport(At least that I'm not aware of), F1 to NASCAR. I feel that comparing fitness for both series is quite useless seeing as the drivers are fit for differing purposes:

F1 fitness - Mainly from the enormous G-forces constantly* at work from the quick acceleration

NASCAR fitness - Mainly from controlling a heavy car and making it turn on many differing track configurations.

Controlling a heavier car requires less fitness. Why? Because more weight = more inertia, which means less g forces-- ie. less rapid acceleration and deceleration.

If you notice, trains don't exactly stop quickly and that is because they're big, heavy, and have little grip. The exact opposite will generate far greater g-forces in every dimension. Another eg: an elephant will rarely sustain more than 0.1g of force in its' lifetime because it simply requires too much power to ever generate that force. A flee, on the other hand, with its' jumping ability, generates over 100g of acceleration. If it weren't for the chitin exoskeleton, it's body would be pulverised by the forces.

As for skill, I think it takes considerably equal amount to have cat-like reflexes for F1 and to Negotiate the traffic constintly in motion in NASCAR.

As if F1 traffic isn't constantly in motion? You're looking at F1 traffic that does 0-60 in about 2.3 seconds—compare that to the 0-60 time of NASCAR vehicles which do 0-60 in, what, 4 seconds? Navigating in traffic in F1 is FAR more tricky, for if 1 wheel touches the another wheel, that could mean game over for both participants, as well as whoever else gets caught up in the ensuing mess.

Only then can you make the definate statement that Its much more difficult or much more easy to race in one then the other.

Incorrect. A doctor can make a diagnosis without having the disease; similarly, you do not have to race to make a judgment on which is easier.

Some basic tendencies lean against NASCAR as being more difficult:

F1 pilots:

-F1 pilots often start around age 10 in Karting
--this often turns into a very specialised racing programme for young adults
---this soon dominates their life, and they compete in many other open wheel racing programmes to find a sponsor
----most retire after age thirty due to waning fitness and competitive levels (Michael Schumacher was 36 when he retired, and he was the oldest one on the grid)

NASCAR drivers:

-many start around age 16, some not until they're 18
--many have only taken a few racing courses at Bondurant or Skip Barber
---Dale Jarett is 52. Michael Waltrip is 45. Dale Earnhardt was in his 50th year when he died. Rusty Wallace retired at 49. Terry Labonte retired at 51. Richard Petty was 55 when he retired. Obviously, NASCAR is not nearly as physically demanding as Formula 1—otherwise these drivers would not be in their 50s AND sporting beer bellies as Rusty Wallace does. They can't be working that much if they're as fat as these guys are getting.

 

[RACECAR]

Until NASCAR drivers learn to turn right, it will always be F1 to NASCAR.

Are you kidding? That is a very blind stereotype. This video shall solve that problem:

 

[Year.Zero]

Are you kidding? That is a very blind stereotype. This video shall solve that problem:

You posted a video of someone who turned RIGHT INTO A WALL?

Edit: He was too fat to get the seatbelt on quickly, AND he stalled the car while exiting the pits. This changes my opinion...how?

Edit 2: And half that race WAS still turning left.

 

[RACECAR]

You posted a video of someone who turned RIGHT INTO A WALL?

Edit: He was too fat to get the seatbelt on quickly, AND he stalled the car while exiting the pits. This changes my opinion...how?

Edit 2: And half that race WAS still turning left.

SO what if it was majorily left, my point is that NASCAR drivers DO know how to turn right and that what you said is totally wrong. But since you seem to be defensive about your rather biased "opinion"(which has no proof behide it), heres Watkins glen:


Infineon:



And lets not forget Riverside:




As I said, That is a very blind stereotype without looking at the entire season or looking at the many series besides cup and busch. All Race car drivers know how to turn right, including Nascar drivers.

 

[Perfect Balance]

SO what if it was majorily left, my point is that NASCAR drivers DO know how to turn right and that what you said is totally wrong. But since you seem to be defensive about your rather biased "opinion"(which has no proof behide it), heres Watkins glen:


All Race car drivers know how to turn right, including Nascar drivers.

You know some of the teams hire a different driver for those races?

And did you forget about drag racing? They rarely knows what goes into turning at all.

EDIT: I'd just like to point out that F1 races has tire change limits too. (usually 2 changes per race I think)

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

You posted a video of someone who turned RIGHT INTO A WALL?

There was also that other incident where he crashed and burned the Corvette at Laguna Seca, I believe it was.

 

[V1P3R]

You posted a video of someone who turned RIGHT INTO A WALL?

 

[TwinTurbos94]

@ Perfect balance:

Just because drag racing is straight line doesn't mean they can turn. Gary Scelzi (Funny car driver) from now and then races sprint cars.

 

[YSSMAN]

I would think since we are yet to see anyone go from Nascar to any other motorsport(At least that I'm not aware of), F1 to NASCAR.

There are quite a few drivers who compete in other forms of motorsport:

- Tony Stewart: Sprint Car, Arena Racing, Rolex Daytona Prototypes, etc
- Jimmie Jonson: Rolex Daytona Prototypes
- Boris Said: I've seen him do just about ANYTHING
- Robby Gordon: A really strong off-road background, I believe hes done Rolex too
- Dale Jr: Did some ALMS races in the C5.R, was very successful with his father when they were teammates back in 2000 or 2001

===

I personally find NASCAR drivers completely capable of racing in any series they may see fit, and similarly, I think just about any F1 driver could easily come down to any other series and do just as well. Its not about the difference in driving styles, or physical fitness, or whatever; Its the determination to do well, and furthermore, being on a team that can deliver a level of performance thats required to win.

Not to start these same damn NASCAR vs F1 arguments again, but as a NASCAR fan, I'm appalled at the level of hatred we receive for liking what is otherwise a "simple" sport. Until you get out there, understand how the cars work, how the teams work, and furthermore what these drivers go through in a single race... I don't think any of you can really appreciate it.

Like someone said earlier, they are completely different animals. I could presumably get in a NASCAR and very easily do 20-30 laps, but that would be all I could do for a day. It takes a lot of training and conditioning to get everything "right" to be successful. And after seeing Hammond try to drive an F1 car, I highly doubt I could come anywhere close to being able to replicate anything close to "success" in one of those.

But, with proper training and plenty of time to practice, I think anyone could do it. Its not a case of natural selection...

===

And just for fun, the series that I think requires the most talent to be good at?

The level of consistency required in any kind of GT racing certainly outweighs that of any other. Or, at least who I think deserve more credit than they get, the home-grown drivers/teams that do the "run what you brung" races in the SCCA.

...They, my friends, are the true heroes of racing...

 

[kjb]

I think both of the transitions could be difficult depending on what team a driver goes to. Let me ask this question if Juan Pablo Montoya was racing for Hendricks or Roush does anybody believe he would still be struggling? Or if Jeff Gordon went to Ferrari or McLaren do you think he would struggle? I personally don't think so.

 

[Perfect Balance]

@ Perfect balance:

Just because drag racing is straight line doesn't mean they can turn. Gary Scelzi (Funny car driver) from now and then races sprint cars.

Almost everything here is more or less a general statement.

Its not about the difference in driving styles, or physical fitness, or whatever;

In F1, it is. I remember a quote by an f1 driver, I don't remember who it was, but he said the reason he was faster than the other drivers was just because he could brake smoother than anyone else. That's driving style right there. An f1 driver has the fitness of a marathon runner. Their heart rates reach 190+ for extended periods of time. Most people don't reach that number at all.

Not to start these same damn NASCAR vs F1 arguments again, but as a NASCAR fan, I'm appalled at the level of hatred we receive for liking what is otherwise a "simple" sport. Until you get out there, understand how the cars work, how the teams work, and furthermore what these drivers go through in a single race... I don't think any of you can really appreciate it.

Over the years, the more I've learned about NASCAR, the more I've disliked it, and especially what it stands for. Most of the crew chiefs have nothing more than a high school education. I have more than a high school education.

And just for fun, the series that I think requires the most talent to be good at?

The level of consistency required in any kind of GT racing certainly outweighs that of any other. Or, at least who I think deserve more credit than they get, the home-grown drivers/teams that do the "run what you brung" races in the SCCA.

...They, my friends, are the true heroes of racing...

I can see where you're coming from on this. They don't have massive amounts of schooling and driver training, it really is dependent of the driver and his talent/own effort that he put in.

I think both of the transitions could be difficult depending on what team a driver goes to. Let me ask this question if Juan Pablo Montoya was racing for Hendricks or Roush does anybody believe he would still be struggling? Or if Jeff Gordon went to Ferrari or McLaren do you think he would struggle? I personally don't think so.

Except Jeff Gordon is one of the best NASCAR drivers, and Juan Pablo Montoya wasn't one of the best F1 drivers.

 

[YSSMAN]

I can see where you're coming from on this. They don't have massive amounts of schooling and driver training, it really is dependent of the driver and his talent/own effort that he put in.

Simply put, I think they're the best drivers in the world. Putting your baby out there on the track, turning the wrenches yourself, and maybe even driving her home is much more of a risk than being cut a $2M check, sitting down in a car for an hour and a half, and winning an extra $2M on top of that.

Its the little stuff that counts, and generally speaking, why I root for the rookies so much in every segment of racing.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Simply put, I think they're the best drivers in the world. Putting your baby out there on the track, turning the wrenches yourself, and maybe even driving her home is much more of a risk than being cut a $2M check, sitting down in a car for an hour and a half, and winning an extra $2M on top of that.

Its the little stuff that counts, and generally speaking, why I root for the rookies so much in every segment of racing.

Best is not the right word, but I can't think of the right one right now.

 

[Earth]

Almost everything here is more or less a general statement.

In F1, it is. I remember a quote by an f1 driver, I don't remember who it was, but he said the reason he was faster than the other drivers was just because he could brake smoother than anyone else. That's driving style right there.

Good point. This proves that the whole 'NASCAR drivers can't compete in F1 because you have to turn left AND right' is utter rubbish. Watch Montoya or any roadcourse regular drive a stock car at the 2 roadcourses on the NASCAR schedule. They make all their time up in the braking zones. They don't 'turn right' any faster than anyone else. Montoya and others, through vast road course experience, have realized braking is where you can make up alot of time. Anybody can turn just as fast as someone else.

Over the years, the more I've learned about NASCAR, the more I've disliked it, and especially what it stands for. Most of the crew chiefs have nothing more than a high school education. I have more than a high school education.

My mechanics instructor did not have a high school diploma at all, yet he is one of the most knowledgeable mechanics I know.

Some of the calls NASCAR crew chiefs have to make in a race are anything but easy. These guys earn their money

Except Jeff Gordon is one of the best NASCAR drivers, and Juan Pablo Montoya wasn't one of the best F1 drivers.

Montoya was one of the best his first few years in F1, and was hailed as the successor to Michael Schumacher before he injured himself and was never the same in F1. It's obvious he lost the fire

I think both of the transitions could be difficult depending on what team a driver goes to. Let me ask this question if Juan Pablo Montoya was racing for Hendricks or Roush does anybody believe he would still be struggling? Or if Jeff Gordon went to Ferrari or McLaren do you think he would struggle? I personally don't think so.

Very good point. Even in NASCAR, the quality of your car can depend on your success.

The trouble Jeff Gordon would face in F1 would be pushing the car 100% for the entire race. That is something he is not use to. NASCAR races are nearly 4 hours long, and every veteran knows if you don't save your stuff in the beginning you'll have nothing left at the end. So even if he gets into a good car, he must have the ability to keep pushing the car every lap, as in F1 the car gets faster as a run goes on, in NASCAR the opposite is true

In Montoya's rookie NASCAR season he tried to push the car 100% every lap like you have to in F1 but ended up wearing out the tires too soon or even exploding them. I don't know what's different this year but his finishes in the first 3 races of 32, 20 and 20 are actually pretty good considering the equipment he is in. I think he will win his first oval this year, most likely at Indianpolis or a mile and a half

Let's move into the more sublte things

In Formula 1 there is only road courses and now I think they added a 2nd street course. Not alot of variety

In NASCAR there are short tracks, one mile tracks, mile and a halfs, 2 mile D shaped ovals and 2 and 1/2 mile superspeedways. All 5 different tracks require totally different setups and different driving styles. In F1 if you're good at one roadcourse you'll be good at the rest. In NASCAR you can butcher the field on the short tracks but will probably get your head handed to you on the larger 2 mile speedways. A Formula 1 driver would have to prove himself a great driver at all 5 different style ovals or he will never come close to winning the championship.

Currently Montoya is good on the 1 1/2 mile tracks, he can get top 10s at those tracks, but hes still a 20th or worse car everywhere else

A NASCAR driver, most likely American, would have to race all over Europe and the world. That means going from country to country where most of the time the first language is not English. Michael Andretti struggled with this, as he tried to fly back to the USA after every Grand Prix which ultimately distracted him.

A Formula 1 driver would have to submerge himself into the NASCAR lifestyle, touring the country, going from city to city week after week

I think both would be a tough transition

 

[GTveteran]

You are implying road racing is tougher than oval racing. I disagree. Oval racing is just as tough if not tougher. Go ahead, laugh. But the truth is oval racing turns are usually negotiated at a much higher speed than a roadcourse and in thick traffic. Usually on a road course you're just running hot laps by yourself, not so on an oval

The thing with that point is, that is what ovals are designed for. You take the same situation on a road course, not just in F1 but NASCAR and other types of racing. Its not all hotlaps by yourself. And the corners go in different directions and at different speeds. Its a different set of skills all together. The focus is more on getting the power down better out of the corner. Whereas in NASCAR they are running quite near their top speed anyway so its all about getting the drag off the car in front.

As for drag racers, I think they should take part in other forms of racing more often. I have a lot of respect for top line drag racers. Holding a car sideways(ish) while accelerating to 320mph in 4.5 seconds takes some skill.

Remember the olden days when drivers used to take part in multiple series. Those were the days. There should be more of that nowadays.

 

[Popeye]

Ermmm, anyone remember Nigel Mansell?

 

[Mt. Lynx]

[/color]
In Formula 1 there is only road courses and now I think they added a 2nd street course. Not alot of variety

In NASCAR there are short tracks, one mile tracks, mile and a halfs, 2 mile D shaped ovals and 2 and 1/2 mile superspeedways. All 5 different tracks require totally different setups and different driving styles. In F1 if you're good at one roadcourse you'll be good at the rest. In NASCAR you can butcher the field on the short tracks but will probably get your head handed to you on the larger 2 mile speedways. A Formula 1 driver would have to prove himself a great driver at all 5 different style ovals or he will never come close to winning the championship.

That is the worst crap I´ve read in a very long time!!
Let me add to this that each and every roadcourse is different to the other, so every track requires a different setup, different strategy and different approach. Wich in effect means 18 different setups and driving styles during a season. THAT is variety! It doesn´t matter how you count, 18 will always be more than 5...

 

[KAMKA-Z]

I do see this thread as kind of a pointless comparison. It's like comparing Football to Gymnastics.

There are quite a few drivers who compete in other forms of motorsport:

- Tony Stewart: Sprint Car, Arena Racing, Rolex Daytona Prototypes, etc
- Jimmie Jonson: Rolex Daytona Prototypes
- Boris Said: I've seen him do just about ANYTHING
- Robby Gordon: A really strong off-road background, I believe hes done Rolex too
- Dale Jr: Did some ALMS races in the C5.R, was very successful with his father when they were teammates back in 2000 or 2001

Tony was a favorite to win at the Indy 500 for several years when the IRL was pretty weak. Looking at him lately, I wonder if he'd fit in an open wheel car anymore. He definitely isn't ripped like Carl Edwards.

Robby Gordon is possibly the MOST versatile driver in the world right now. He's done Off-Road, IMSA, Trans-Am, CART, IRL, NASCAR, Dakar, The Race of Champions and has been competitive in all of them. I really applaud that versatility. He's much like the driving heroes of the 60's and 70's who "Drove them all".

And just for fun, the series that I think requires the most talent to be good at?

The level of consistency required in any kind of GT racing certainly outweighs that of any other. Or, at least who I think deserve more credit than they get, the home-grown drivers/teams that do the "run what you brung" races in the SCCA.

...They, my friends, are the true heroes of racing...

You gotta admire the commitment of amateur competitors. Not bankrolled by huge sponsors. Putting together cars that are works of art on nights and weekends. Taking an extra day or two of vacation time for those events that are a long haul. Sleeping at the track. Driving their heart out on the track and packing it all up and driving home when it's done.

And just for fun, the series that I think requires the most talent to be good at?

Rally