Nascar
- Thread starter alik44
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No not really, its a bunch of cars making left turns at 150mph...it gets a little stale after the 100th lap, the crashes spice things up
The best thing about NASCAR is that I once heard a comedian turn it into an acronym for Non-Athletic Sport Created Around Rednecks, which is just eerily accurate.
It's a bunch of cars going around a circle over and over and over - the only reason it's even vaguely interesting to watch are the occasional crashes. Which is not to say that I watch NASCAR for the crashes, as I don't watch NASCAR at all, or at least not on purpose.
It's a bunch of cars going around a circle over and over and over - the only reason it's even vaguely interesting to watch are the occasional crashes. Which is not to say that I watch NASCAR for the crashes, as I don't watch NASCAR at all, or at least not on purpose.
I don't think they ment "they're just drivin around in circles, I could do that". I rather think they ment, "The track is oval/circular, and the races take forever; that's not very exciting to watch".RAKtheUndead said:[HEADING=1]WRONG![/HEADING]Gildan Bladeborn said:
[HEADING=3]?Racing is just driving around in circles! I could do that!?[/HEADING]
For obvious reasons, this is one of those commonly repeated sentiments regarding the sport, usually recited by those which have almost no experience with it at all. Unfortunately for them, this is the most easily debunked misconception, and its application just damages any credibility that they have in order to make valid complaints.
First and foremost, very few tracks in the world are actual circles; most of them are at least ovals of some sort, and usually road or street circuits. A few circle tracks do exist, including Volkswagen's Nardo high-speed test track, but these tracks are invariably not used for racing. Indeed, circle tracks give very unsatisfying racing. Because there are no braking points on a circular track, the cars will eventually just travel at either the highest speed that the tyres can manage without slipping, if the track has a relatively small radius, or at their maximum speed if the track has a large radius.
This removes several of the main dynamics of motor racing and leads to two unsatisfactory conclusions ? if one car can maintain a higher speed than the others, it will undoubtedly win, and if the cars are all close enough to keep them in a pack, the only way to get any overtaking is to get into the slipstream of the opponent and hope to slingshot past them. The latter sorts of races are bound to be accident-prone, as demonstrated by superficially similar NASCAR restrictor plate races, where the bunched-up grid regularly leads to multi-car pile-ups.
If this looks like a circle to you, perhaps you need your eyesight checked.
Clearly, this argument isn't literal, though, and is meant more as a way to disparage racing drivers for what the people making this argument would perceive as too much merit for an ostensibly easy sport. Of course, this argument is easily shot down as well. Motor racing, whether it's autocross or single-marque racing up to the fastest cars in Formula One and the Indy Racing League, is not easy.
In order to be a successful racing driver, there are several attributes which you must have ? ones that don't necessarily exist in the wider populace. You must be able to control a car or motorcycle at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour, while racing rivals try to get past you. You must be spatially aware and capable of figuring out the physical characteristics of the vehicle under all conditions, and do so unconsciously. You must be able to communicate effectively with engineers and mechanics on the technical details of the vehicle and how you wish it to drive. These are not skills which exist within the majority of the non-racing populace, many of which seem to think that driving goes no further than turning the steering wheel and operating the pedals and gear stick.
Motor racing is not only mentally difficult, but can also be physically difficult as well. Depending on the characteristics of the car, the first physical difficulty can arise with actually getting the car to turn. While power steering systems have made it easier for any sort of driver to turn a steering wheel in a car at lower speeds, this ease of turning doesn't necessarily translate directly at high speeds, where momentum and inertia can drastically affect how a car handles, along with other physical forces. Other physical effects on the body include high G-forces resulting from increasing cornering speeds and the inevitable buckets of sweat produced by a racing driver on the edge. As for motorcyclists, the constant almost-imperceptible shifts in body mass that need to be performed in order to race the motorcycle put them almost in a league of their own when it comes to physical strength and fitness.
Okay, you like cars, we get it.RAKtheUndead said:
I don't even find the crashes that interesting actually. Oh, a car just hit another one. Whoo. If I wanted to see that, I'd just go to the nearest highway overpass and pack a bag of popcorn.
So I really never watch any motorsports. It just seems so childish and juvenile to obsess over it as an actual form of entertainment, or sport for that matter. It's just about being perfect, which frankly is a little boring. There's no trick to it, or any particular style of play, everyone's just doing the exact same thing, in cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, emitting copious amounts of greenhouse gasses while they're at it.
Like, I can understand those long distance races, through the Sahara or forest or whatever. That's a test of endurance, and a fun time along the way. But just going around a loop over and over again or getting to the finish line first in your automotive machine just lacks soul and complexity.
NASCAR just seems so dull to me. It is an oval ring in which cars drive around in quite quickly, but it doesn't seem very quick because there are a kajillion laps and everybody's going at the same speed. At least Formula 1 has those fancy European "right turns" to spice things up, and even that's still pretty dull.
While I will of course admit these gays and gals are really good at what they do, and it does take a ton of skill, I just don't care for it. I watch F1, AMLS, rally, grand-am, the continental series, etc. Most of the televised NASCAR races are on oval courses which I don't find entertaining.
I also have much more interest in the multi-class racing, and with cars that are more relatable to production vehicles.
My biggest peaves against NASCAR is that it's still referred to as 'stock' car racing. They also take insanely long to pick up new technology. This results in, among other things, lower safety for the drivers and doesn't contribute as much technology towards the street cars.
The whole thing just seems like one giant false advertising show. Yes I understand that when I watch F1 or AMLS it's porsche this and ferrari that, but the thing is that the 911 GT3 out on the track at least *looks* like the GT3 at the dealer. The Camry and the Fusion over in the NASCAR race? Please show me a car in the lineup of these manufacturers that are relatable to the NASCAR race cars.
I also have much more interest in the multi-class racing, and with cars that are more relatable to production vehicles.
My biggest peaves against NASCAR is that it's still referred to as 'stock' car racing. They also take insanely long to pick up new technology. This results in, among other things, lower safety for the drivers and doesn't contribute as much technology towards the street cars.
The whole thing just seems like one giant false advertising show. Yes I understand that when I watch F1 or AMLS it's porsche this and ferrari that, but the thing is that the 911 GT3 out on the track at least *looks* like the GT3 at the dealer. The Camry and the Fusion over in the NASCAR race? Please show me a car in the lineup of these manufacturers that are relatable to the NASCAR race cars.
I went back and highlighted what you should have paid attention to. Try to remember that this is a thread about NASCAR, not a thread about racing in general, which has as much variety as any other sport. And don't take things so personally, while we're at it.RAKtheUndead said:[HEADING=1]WRONG![/HEADING]Gildan Bladeborn said:
[HEADING=3]?Racing is just driving around in circles! I could do that!?[/HEADING]
For obvious reasons, this is one of those commonly repeated sentiments regarding the sport, usually recited by those which have almost no experience with it at all. Unfortunately for them, this is the most easily debunked misconception, and its application just damages any credibility that they have in order to make valid complaints.
First and foremost, very few tracks in the world are actual circles; most of them are at least ovals of some sort, and usually road or street circuits. A few circle tracks do exist, including Volkswagen's Nardo high-speed test track, but these tracks are invariably not used for racing. Indeed, circle tracks give very unsatisfying racing. Because there are no braking points on a circular track, the cars will eventually just travel at either the highest speed that the tyres can manage without slipping, if the track has a relatively small radius, or at their maximum speed if the track has a large radius.
This removes several of the main dynamics of motor racing and leads to two unsatisfactory conclusions ? if one car can maintain a higher speed than the others, it will undoubtedly win, and if the cars are all close enough to keep them in a pack, the only way to get any overtaking is to get into the slipstream of the opponent and hope to slingshot past them. The latter sorts of races are bound to be accident-prone, as demonstrated by superficially similar NASCAR restrictor plate races, where the bunched-up grid regularly leads to multi-car pile-ups.
If this looks like a circle to you, perhaps you need your eyesight checked.
Clearly, this argument isn't literal, though, and is meant more as a way to disparage racing drivers for what the people making this argument would perceive as too much merit for an ostensibly easy sport. Of course, this argument is easily shot down as well. Motor racing, whether it's autocross or single-marque racing up to the fastest cars in Formula One and the Indy Racing League, is not easy.
In order to be a successful racing driver, there are several attributes which you must have ? ones that don't necessarily exist in the wider populace. You must be able to control a car or motorcycle at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour, while racing rivals try to get past you. You must be spatially aware and capable of figuring out the physical characteristics of the vehicle under all conditions, and do so unconsciously. You must be able to communicate effectively with engineers and mechanics on the technical details of the vehicle and how you wish it to drive. These are not skills which exist within the majority of the non-racing populace, many of which seem to think that driving goes no further than turning the steering wheel and operating the pedals and gear stick.
Motor racing is not only mentally difficult, but can also be physically difficult as well. Depending on the characteristics of the car, the first physical difficulty can arise with actually getting the car to turn. While power steering systems have made it easier for any sort of driver to turn a steering wheel in a car at lower speeds, this ease of turning doesn't necessarily translate directly at high speeds, where momentum and inertia can drastically affect how a car handles, along with other physical forces. Other physical effects on the body include high G-forces resulting from increasing cornering speeds and the inevitable buckets of sweat produced by a racing driver on the edge. As for motorcyclists, the constant almost-imperceptible shifts in body mass that need to be performed in order to race the motorcycle put them almost in a league of their own when it comes to physical strength and fitness.
Thanks kindly!
In NASCAR's defense, it takes a shitload of endurance to hold a car in the same line 200 times at 180 MPH, while working out how to pass someone at 180 MPH, trying to figure out when the best time to pit is at 180 MPH and the whole time making sure you don't hit anyone or scrape off any advertisements. at 180 Miles per Fucking Hour.
That said, it's not all that fun to watch.
That said, it's not all that fun to watch.
I always liked NHRA way better. Sure, it's drag racing, but it's fast as hell, doesn't take like, 8 hours to watch, and they still blow up every now and then. Each race only takes less than 10 seconds too, so even ADD people can love it.
Nope, it's perfectly healthy. It's what we call "human nature". WE enjoy watching other people suffer, it's natural.
Never could watch NASCAR. A few short moments of excitement don't make up for the massive amounts of absolute boredom.
At this point several other people have pointed out that I'm talking about NASCAR, not racing in general, but I might as well weigh in on your ridiculous over-reaction as well. Yes, the tracks are not circular, but they are bloody ovals inside enclosed stadiums surrounded by bleachers on which cars go round and round. If you are told to "circle an answer" on a test, and you draw an oval around your selection, you have still bloody circled it. Clearly this is what I meant, not that the tracks themselves are circular in nature.RAKtheUndead said:
As for the mechanics, I don't give a crap about how the cars work, or how much skill is involved driving at that level, as I do not compete in NASCAR events, nor would I ever claim I am capable of such or wish to if I was. I am simply a disinterested observer, and no matter how you bloody slice it, watching cars go round and round over and over is freaking boring. It's probably a lot more exciting for the folks actually driving those cars, but we're outside sitting on our asses watching them go round and round - and that is boring.
I did, because it isn't - I posit that watching cars drive in a loop for hours is only marginally more interesting than watching paint dry.Jonluw said:
I am routinely baffled by the appeal of video games that simulate those races - if I'm going to drive a car in a situation wherein I am essentially immortal and allowed to cheat death due to it all being a simulation, I'm going to be driving the wrong way through traffic, causing massive crashes, strapping guns on and blasting things - I sure as hell wouldn't choose to drive on a roughly circular course over and over. At least if you were actually doing that, you get the sensation of speed and the thrill of doing something dangerous, but simulating it in a video game strikes me as an exercise in monotony. You're playing a video game for crying out loud!Blue_vision said:
Apparently some people enjoy simulated boredom.
