The reason passing is more prevalent in NASCAR than, say, F1 or GP2 has little to do with the fact that NASCAR is "more competitive," and everything to do with the differences between technology and rules. How many times has an F1 or GP2 car(more-so in F1 until they bring ground effects back) been catching multiple tenths of a second per lap on the car in front(so it is obviously quicker and more competitive) only to catch up to him with 10 laps left and never have an opportunity to make a move.
If the car is quicker and faster, how is that more competitive?
Maybe I should explain more competitve, as in equal in performance.
It is extremely difficult to run anywhere near the back of a Formula One car because of just how much an F1 car displaces. It has NOTHING to do with aero push in F1(as, essentially there is none). F1 cars are running so much wing the air is deflected at angles and speeds that don't allow for another F1 car to tuck in behind it and experience 'aero push.' It will have less resistance, sure, because it's getting hardly any air for downforce at all but once an F1 car is close enough to even think about passing the vacuum isn't pulling it in because that vacuum hasn't even caught up to the trail car yet.
You are confusing aero-push with drafting.
Aero push in a stock car makes it advantageous to be following behind another car because they displacing just enough air to allow the lead and trail car to become one(though not entirely true because the trail car is actually being sucked into the lead car), aerodynamically speaking, giving both adequate downforce to keep stable(unless the trail car is really, really close). That and they don't have to worry about the handling issues an F1 car encounters, which makes that downforce much more critical for an F1 car.
I see your F1 point, but you are incorrect about the way an NASCAR car handles during aero-push.
Obviosly from your comments you only watch restrictor plate races, because you keep going on about drafting situations.
Maybe I should elaborate what aero-push is then, yes?
F1 cars are light, quick, with a huge power to weight ratio, and have to navigate unbanked turns at high lateral g's.
Apples and oranges, again.
Stock cars are none of that. They are dealing with entirely different issues but the passing issue in F1 has more to do with the cars and tracks than differences in competitiveness between the teams. Sure, that does play a part of it but my point was the passing in F1 is far more exciting(when it does occur) and in most circumstances takes much more skill and risk than in a NASCAR race.
Well a race that has passing "when it does happen" is not very exciting.
Must be why I try to watch an F1 race but can't.
But I don't criticize the sport for being what it is.
Not that passing in NASCAR is easy, like all racing though, it depends on the situation and the track. But that is the difference between NASCAR and F1. One pass in NASCAR isn't a huge deal, many races you could pick up with 20 laps left and be just as well off as someone that's watched the entire thing. F1, you could watch 20 laps and not see one single pass but the difference from NASCAR is one or two passes in even the first lap of the race could decide the outcome. Hell, usually qualifying does that on some of the less pass friendly tracks like Monaco or... anything Hermann Tilke designs...
Sounds to me like you have watched too many races only when there are 20 laps left.
We generally watch turn 1 in an F1 race then it's over for us, is that what you want to hear?
edit: I can appreciate NASCAR for what it is but it just isn't fast paced enough for me. Yea, it's fast, but the position battles in NASCAR just don't make my pants fit any tighter...
No racing makes my pants any tighter, but the smell of racing fuel does something for me.
I have tried watching a full season of F1, but to me it is not entertaining.
And NASCAR didn't ruin SPEED, where do you think I watch all other racing (except WRC and FIA) that I listed, yeah SPEED.
