Comments on: Can anyone tell me what the point of NASCAR racing is?

By: Michael G

Michael G — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:12:59 +0000

As in any sport, the point is to win.
References :

By: gloria_512

gloria_512 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:48:59 +0000

How many races have you actually watched? You seem to have already pre-judged what you know nothing about. Too bad, it is your loss. Go Jr.>>>>
References :

By: Honey

Honey — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:33:59 +0000

The purpose of NASCAR is to get stupid assh*les like you to ask obvious questions because you don't have a girlfriend or social life. one hand plucking keys and the other plucking pubes!!!!!!!!!!! Don't forget to wash your hand there spanky!!!
References :

By: rowdy45

rowdy45 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:54:59 +0000

It must be pretty exciting, you keep asking questions about it.
References :

By: nascar_angel

nascar_angel — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:43:59 +0000

nascar is like anything else you watch.either you like it or you dont.i like it so if you dont like it thats your opinion.but there is alot of people that like different things and i think nascar is great.oh by the way im not a red neck. lol
References :

By: crunch

crunch — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:36:59 +0000

Claiming that NASCAR is boring because all they do is go around in a circle is akin to claiming that all life on Earth is boring because the Earth travels around the Sun in a circle.

Guess what. I’m a redneck and I like F1,too, so I guess that makes you a redneck. All my redneck friends like F1.

We all can explain why an F1 car turns so well. It’s simply a function of physics. Exaggerated atmospheric pressure is greater than the centrifigal force acting on the car. The driver applies input and gets the expected result. It’s like a mathmatical formula, A+B=C, where A and B are constants, therefore C is always predictable. If an F1 driver applies a variable to A or B then C will be a wreck.

NASCAR drivers face a formula more like this:

A+B=X where A is a variable, B is unknown and they rarely wreck.

Take Montoya, as he had been using the F1 formula and is just now starting to learn to the new formula.

In F1, the car reacts to the driver while in NASCAR the driver reacts to the car and the way the car acts will vary greatly according to traffic, the racing line you are on as opposed to the preferred line, speed and track temperature (is the bump in the shade, is all the bump in the shade). Variance of position on the track as small as 6 inches can change the way the car reacts. Six inches higher, miss the bump. Six inches lower, you hit the bump.

You can hit the bump 3 times in a row and get 3 different actions from the car. It’s the driver’s job to solve the equation in a split second and get the car back under control. It’s something they do thousands of time in a race.

I don’t care what anyone says, battling a car that is constantly out of control is a lot harder than driving a controlled car, regardless of the speed or g forces.

Once you learn the line around a road course, they are a piece of cake.

It does you little good to learn the line around an oval because chances are, you won’t be on it anyway.

I’ve also seen a lot of fast cars lose to a fast driver in NASCAR. I’ve never seen a fast car lose in F1, at least not since 1966. That was around the time when F1 stopped using the same formula as NASCAR and turned the drivers into operators. When the car builders started telling the operators to "drive it on in there, it’ll stick!" When it doesn’t stick all the operator can say is, "oops". He’s going so fast, he doesn’t have time to solve the new equation, even if he could.

Montoya is learning to solve the new equation and when he does, A+B=FAST.

In summation, in F1 the car gets the driver to turn while in NASCAR the driver gets the car to turn. F1 is fine if you like cars that can do the impossible, which I do, but I prefer a sport where the driver does the impossible.

F1 cars are obedient slaves, while "Stock Cars" are cantankerous, rebellious independent beasts that force the driver to bridle them.

F1 cars are like “Tennessee Walking Horses”; beautiful to watch with impeccable timing and proud strutters while Stock Cars are wild, untamed bucking broncos.

Ride’m Cowboy!
References :
I hope you understand as I tried to keep it simple.

By: hockey_gal9

hockey_gal9 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:26:59 +0000

If you have to ask a question like this (which is an incredibly old, used up question, I might add), it proves you're not smart enough to retain the correct answer. So why should I give it to you? Go back to your Tonka trucks in your sandbox, and leave the racing to the big dogs.
References :

By: kitkat

kitkat — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:12:59 +0000

just going in a circle over and over? whereas most sports are running back and forth with a ball over and over. Non athletic sport? i thought that was golf? centered around rednecks? might want to do some demographics on Nascar fans before you make such a moronic stereotype again. Its almost as moronic as saying all basketball fans come from the inner city ghetto's.
References :

By: aaricka

aaricka — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:00:59 +0000

This answer is not like the others still I like to watch the NASCAR races, you have have seen races in Europe much different
I race my Fiat on a road racing track 2 1/2 mile track turns all around shifting turning it is great.
I have a ride on the oval track so I like it also But the Fiat is more fun because I am up against my times without a group
pushing me around. the oval takes more mental than I ever though possible…
Another difference the oval more people watch and yell
road it is me the wind the dirt at times and getting to go as fast as I can without getting a ticket
References :

By: Cam

Cam — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:24:59 +0000

Entertainment. Now go away.
References :