Cup Cars on Road Courses--A Compromise?

I consider road courses to be the ultimate test of driver skill.

Dunno about that really.....yeah, it impresses the hell out of me that Kyle Busch can win anywhere--even at the road courses, but I cannot consider Junior to be **** simply because he struggles at such tracks. Just not sure that a guy who can't run road courses has less overall skill than those who can. It is fascinating to me that Denny Hamlin is such a braking master yet is just not great on road courses. Love this stuff.....
 
I consider road courses to be the ultimate test of driver skill.
Many people have that opinion, and many believe oval track driving is simple. Fans of road racing such as F1 or GT racing or even Indycar often denigrate Nascar as simple roundy-round. If you need proof, they say, just look at a track diagram, it is self evident which is simple and which is complex...
zzzDarlington_raceway.svg.png
ZZZBrno-Track-Map.png


The truth is quite different. Actual experienced roadracers (not talking about the posers here) will tell you the most difficult corners, and the ones where the most time can be gained, tend to be the high speed corners with braking *and* high corner speed. It may look impressive to brake from top speed to 40 mph for a hairpin, but it is much more difficult and skill-intensive to brake for a 140 mph sweeper. It is the latter type corner where the Nascar driver lives, and he must contend with heavy traffic and multiple grooves and a degree of aggression the roadracer rarely sees. The complexity of turning both left and right is child's play in comparison. This is why actual racers almost always have great respect for the daunting task of driving high speed ovals. (Just ask Romain Grosjean.)

Also, most roadracing cars have much greater downforce to ease the task, and relatively advanced suspension systems, and lighter weight, and more tire. Don't forget automated, computer controlled shifting. It is no coincidence that the list of accomplished roadracers who have been highly successful in Nascar is a very short list.

I came from the roadracing side of the sport, but I stand in awe of the driving skills at the front of the Nascar pack, where 0.1 sec is often the difference between 1st and 10th.
 
Many people have that opinion, and many believe oval track driving is simple. Fans of road racing such as F1 or GT racing or even Indycar often denigrate Nascar as simple roundy-round. If you need proof, they say, just look at a track diagram, it is self evident which is simple and which is complex...
The truth is quite different. Actual experienced roadracers (not talking about the posers here) will tell you the most difficult corners, and the ones where the most time can be gained, tend to be the high speed corners with braking *and* high corner speed. It may look impressive to brake from top speed to 40 mph for a hairpin, but it is much more difficult and skill-intensive to brake for a 140 mph sweeper. It is the latter type corner where the Nascar driver lives, and he must contend with heavy traffic and multiple grooves and a degree of aggression the roadracer rarely sees. The complexity of turning both left and right is child's play in comparison. This is why actual racers almost always have great respect for the daunting task of driving high speed ovals. (Just ask Romain Grosjean.)

Also, most roadracing cars have much greater downforce to ease the task, and relatively advanced suspension systems, and lighter weight, and more tire. Don't forget automated, computer controlled shifting. It is no coincidence that the list of accomplished roadracers who have been highly successful in Nascar is a very short list.

I came from the roadracing side of the sport, but I stand in awe of the driving skills at the front of the Nascar pack, where 0.1 sec is often the difference between 1st and 10th.

I think it is a testament to the overall driving ability of the Cup drivers when the "road course ringers" can't beat them in a stock car at road courses.
I love these road course races. I can't wait for this weekend.
 
I think it is a testament to the overall driving ability of the Cup drivers when the "road course ringers" can't beat them in a stock car at road courses.
I love these road course races. I can't wait for this weekend.
I think it says more about how the differences between stock cars and dedicated road course cars have become too wide for ringers to adapt.
 
Road course racing is fun and different, however, I have always felt that these cars are not engineered to be on road courses, and they look awkward. What are your thoughts, and for those with racing backgrounds, what has been done over the years to make these cars better on these tracks?
Sorry but I profoundly disagree, there's nothing better in racing than watching a 3500 pound stock car being thrown around a road course, one wheel off the ground coming out of a turn. Goose bumps. :headbang:
 
^ Well done post.
Thanks, Aunty. It pisses me off to see social media keyboard warriors pronounce that "just turning left" is lacking in skill, and F1 is "the pinnacle" of racing skill. Meanwhile, in F1 how fast you go is ~90% correlated to what brand of car you drive, and ~10% correlated to driver skill. Yes, there are a few great drivers in F1, but more of them are merely adequate (same thing in Nascar). It has always been so, throughout history.
 
Boris coached a lot of NASCAR drivers. They paid attention well and improved on his techniques.
Still like watching the Boris foot cam.
Dave Despain recently aired a 30-minute show with Boris Said (MavTV). Those who say Nascar is "simple roundy-round" should be required to view it. Said regards Nascar as the toughest racing on Earth.
 
Certainly, and I think that teams are building dedicated road course cars where in the past I don't think they did....and I guess that's my question...How much can you do to these cars to make them viable on a track like Sonoma before you are asking them to do more than they are capable of? I mean the argument against COTA is that the turns are too tight, etc. for these cars. Some of this has to be about the car to track compatibility I would think....and I wonder how compatible Sonoma is where I think Watkins Glenn definitely suits these cars IMO.
I wouldn't ever want to see COTA on the schedule. Way too many other quality road courses in the States (and Canada). But, it's new and shiny, great facilities, and has a lot of grandstands so I could see how it would land a spot before the others.
 
I believe the argument against Nascar at COTA has more to do with Eddie Gossage/SMI than anything else. TMS is 3 hours up I-35.
 
I think it says more about how the differences between stock cars and dedicated road course cars have become too wide for ringers to adapt.
That said, some of them did pretty well, especially when they had decent equipment. Scott Pruett kicked ass at Watkins Glen for a few years with CGR. I think Jan Magnussen made one start and finished around the Top 10 with a car that wasn't anything special. Ron Fellows had some Top 5s and Top 10s despite never having any real quality stuff underneath him.

Difficult to do even that well when you're getting seat time only once or twice a year.
 
I believe the argument against Nascar at COTA has more to do with Eddie Gossage/SMI than anything else. TMS is 3 hours up I-35.
Whatever the argument is, I'm glad it's working. That place actually managed to make V8 Supercars boring for a weekend.
 
Sorry but I profoundly disagree, there's nothing better in racing than watching a 3500 pound stock car being thrown around a road course, one wheel off the ground coming out of a turn. Goose bumps. :headbang:

Respect your opinion. All good. Looking forward to this weekend.
 
Watkins Glen is pretty much a Richmond with right turns...has always been kinda boring, imo. Sears Point is great, tests the drivers and cars.
 
F1 how fast you go is ~90% correlated to what brand of car you drive, and ~10% correlated to driver skill. Yes, there are a few great drivers in F1, but more of them are merely adequate (same thing in Nascar).

I will agree with you, but Schumacher 1996.....Greatest driver ever IMO in one of the most horrendous cars. Spain in the wet was his bitch. Just awesome.
 
I recall a driver from Indycar going to F1 (forgot which one) and he wanted the car unbalanced for a specific corner (using oval racing experience). Normally F1 cars are set up balanced. The F1 team expected the driver to wreck the car but he made the pass at the corner he set up for (it was an impressive pass where others never tried a pass).

I've heard F1 drivers call NASCAR and Indycar drivers crazy for running ovals but I suspect they have a certain amount of apprehension about about driving sustained high speeds in close proximity with other cars with the possibility of crashing into a concrete wall (safety barriers have been added since those comments).

I've always had the opinion that a good driver in any race series can drive any race car given enough time to acclimate to the car. For example, Jeff Gordon ran fast enough to quality an F1 car in his first experience (meaning within 10% of the pole) and Montoya wasn't bad in NASCAR (I consider Montoya in the same realm as Mario Andretti).
 
I've always like the road courses and for many of the early years I don't believe the cars were really given a lot of attention on being made for a road course and the cup drivers really weren't all that good. Maybe why Gurney won I believe three times in a row. As the teams started looking a road courses weren't a throw away race they started placing more importance on making a car just for the road courses and drivers started taking training on how to drive better. I wish we could get one or two more road races and take away at least one of the plate races, but I doubt that 's going to happen.
 
(I consider Montoya in the same realm as Mario Andretti)
Here is where you lost me, Zerk. Montoya hasn't accomplished enough to carry Andretti's helmet bag. I've never seen JPM put the team on his back and carry it to the win, just my $0.02.

(I do recall Mario in the mid-1970's introducing the concept of stagger to F1.)
 
Here is where you lost me, Zerk. Montoya hasn't accomplished enough to carry Andretti's helmet bag. I've never seen JPM put the team on his back and carry it to the win, just my $0.02.
It is from the point of view that Montoya has won in several top series like Andretti. Few other drivers from this generation have run successfully in multiple series and none with as many series as Montoya. That is how I link him to Andretti.
 
I've always like the road courses and for many of the early years I don't believe the cars were really given a lot of attention on being made for a road course........

Long ago, back in olden times, Richmond, September races in the mid nineteen hunnert 'n seventy sumthin's.......
 
What was I? I'm awake.

What?

Oh, hell..... Richmond in September. Ya'd walk down the front stretch, thru the startin' field – didn't have “grids” back then - look it the cars 'n they was beat all ta hell. Believe it was Harry Hyde - God hold and keep him - what brought in one them K&K cars 'n from the side the damned thing had so much Bondo on it ya couldn't tell it was a Dodge. Beaty told 'im not ta bring it back's I recall.
 
Oh.. Naw, ain't lost my place.

Ya'd take a look at the right quarters ya could see where they'd moved the....
 
Huh?

Ain't fergettin', just old.

Where they'd moved the gas filler thingy from the left side to the right for the road things. Short track cars. For Richmond, they'd moved it back to the left 'n hadda hunka sheet metal cover over where they cut it right.... For the road things. Somewhere out west.

I think it was. Long time ago.

T'was a long ride up Three Chopped Road, it was.
 
'N there weren't no green ring 'round the filler. Back then corn squeezin's weren't fer bein' burnt in no stupid race car.
 
The cars do look awkward on the road courses but that doesn't take away from the expertise the drivers need to have to be successful on them.
 
Back
Top Bottom