Honda Car Forum

Joe LaVigne wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:55:24 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>>> want to?
>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible,
>> that's dumb. name a single vehicle innovation or invention that's
>> benefited normal cars that's come from nascar. f1 otoh, where cars are
>> /not/ equal, is the #1 breeding ground for vehicle technology in the
>> world today. it's ancient now, but the fuel injection technology honda
>> sold with its mainstream vehicles in the late 80's was straight off the
>> f1 race track. nascar's a joke.
>
> Where did I say that NASCAR innovated anything? They simply want to have
> the cars be as equal as possible on the track.
>
> Their goal is not (nor should it be) to do a damn thing for your car.

if you drive a honda, you'd be amazed how much of it is based on
competition-derived technologies. if there's no scope for innovation
and testing in competition, you get to drive crap. driven a chevy
lately? they dominate nascar.

> Their job is to pack the track with fans, and get TV ratings. They
> accomplish both tasks.

yeah, with b.s. hype about "jet fuel". and have you checked f1 ratings?
no one knows f1 here, but when i was in europe, it was /huge/.

> As for F1, they can innovate all they like. Their races are boring follow
> the leader festivals. The only interesting part is qualifying. Once that
> is set, there is almost never a serious race...
>
> For all of it's flaws, NASCAR is competitive on the track...

like a circle jerk?

iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:02?am, Joe LaVigne <jlavi...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>
>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>> want to?
>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
>> outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...
>>
>> Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
>
> I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
> Everyone would just start using jet fuel.

Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
overhead-cam engines!)

--
Mike Smith

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:14:56 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:55:24 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>>>> want to?
>>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible,
>>> that's dumb. name a single vehicle innovation or invention that's
>>> benefited normal cars that's come from nascar. f1 otoh, where cars are
>>> /not/ equal, is the #1 breeding ground for vehicle technology in the
>>> world today. it's ancient now, but the fuel injection technology honda
>>> sold with its mainstream vehicles in the late 80's was straight off the
>>> f1 race track. nascar's a joke.
>>
>> Where did I say that NASCAR innovated anything? They simply want to have
>> the cars be as equal as possible on the track.
>>
>> Their goal is not (nor should it be) to do a damn thing for your car.
>
> if you drive a honda, you'd be amazed how much of it is based on
> competition-derived technologies. if there's no scope for innovation
> and testing in competition, you get to drive crap. driven a chevy
> lately? they dominate nascar.

Again who gives a rat's ass? Nascar has no responsibility to create
innovation for grocery-getters. Their job is to put asses in the seats.
They do it.

>
>> Their job is to pack the track with fans, and get TV ratings. They
>> accomplish both tasks.
>
> yeah, with b.s. hype about "jet fuel". and have you checked f1 ratings?
> no one knows f1 here, but when i was in europe, it was /huge/.

There was no "B.S. hype about jet fuel". A team was found to be using an
illegal additive in the fuel. NASCAR never mentioned "jet fuel", nor
would they.

And I also don't care about Europe's TV ratings. You may have missed
this, but F1's ratings suck in the US whenever they are on.

>
>> As for F1, they can innovate all they like. Their races are boring follow
>> the leader festivals. The only interesting part is qualifying. Once that
>> is set, there is almost never a serious race...
>>
>> For all of it's flaws, NASCAR is competitive on the track...
>
> like a circle jerk?

You don't like it, that's fine. Some find a circle-track to be boring,
and I am fine with that. But in NASCAR, there is passing, drafting, and
the occasional wreck (more in a plate race). In F1, the finishes are
almost always dependent on the qualifying position. There is hardly ever
a photo-finish, and passing in a turn is almost unheard of. Not to
mention that, for a spectator, it is dull as hell. You see a blur of cars
pass, then wait a while before you see anything else.

You watch what you like, and I'll watch what I like, but to dismiss
NASCAR's popularity simply because they don't make your car better is just
plain silly...

Joe LaVigne wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:14:56 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:55:24 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>>>>> want to?
>>>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible,
>>>> that's dumb. name a single vehicle innovation or invention that's
>>>> benefited normal cars that's come from nascar. f1 otoh, where cars are
>>>> /not/ equal, is the #1 breeding ground for vehicle technology in the
>>>> world today. it's ancient now, but the fuel injection technology honda
>>>> sold with its mainstream vehicles in the late 80's was straight off the
>>>> f1 race track. nascar's a joke.
>>> Where did I say that NASCAR innovated anything? They simply want to have
>>> the cars be as equal as possible on the track.
>>>
>>> Their goal is not (nor should it be) to do a damn thing for your car.
>> if you drive a honda, you'd be amazed how much of it is based on
>> competition-derived technologies. if there's no scope for innovation
>> and testing in competition, you get to drive crap. driven a chevy
>> lately? they dominate nascar.
>
> Again who gives a rat's ass? Nascar has no responsibility to create
> innovation for grocery-getters. Their job is to put asses in the seats.
> They do it.
>
>>> Their job is to pack the track with fans, and get TV ratings. They
>>> accomplish both tasks.
>> yeah, with b.s. hype about "jet fuel". and have you checked f1 ratings?
>> no one knows f1 here, but when i was in europe, it was /huge/.
>
> There was no "B.S. hype about jet fuel". A team was found to be using an
> illegal additive in the fuel. NASCAR never mentioned "jet fuel", nor
> would they.
>
> And I also don't care about Europe's TV ratings. You may have missed
> this, but F1's ratings suck in the US whenever they are on.
>
>>> As for F1, they can innovate all they like. Their races are boring follow
>>> the leader festivals. The only interesting part is qualifying. Once that
>>> is set, there is almost never a serious race...
>>>
>>> For all of it's flaws, NASCAR is competitive on the track...
>> like a circle jerk?
>
> You don't like it, that's fine. Some find a circle-track to be boring,
> and I am fine with that. But in NASCAR, there is passing, drafting, and
> the occasional wreck (more in a plate race). In F1, the finishes are
> almost always dependent on the qualifying position. There is hardly ever
> a photo-finish, and passing in a turn is almost unheard of. Not to
> mention that, for a spectator, it is dull as hell. You see a blur of cars
> pass, then wait a while before you see anything else.
>
> You watch what you like, and I'll watch what I like, but to dismiss
> NASCAR's popularity simply because they don't make your car better is just
> plain silly...

this is all about preferences. you're right, nascar has no obligation
to do anything. it's a circus. and so is f1. but /my/ preference is
to see an event that has multiple levels of interest. /i/ like to know
about the vehicles and who has what. /i/ like to see technical
advantage. dual overhead cams, electronic ignition, fuel injection,
ventilated disk brakes, abs, shock absorbers, aerodynamics, synchromesh
technology, lubricants, composites, safety systems, etc., etc., are
/all/ beneficiaries of f1 competition over the years. what the
europeans call rally driving is another major source. as for
entertainment value, i don't think you've watched much of it. nascar is
solid rear axles going "up aways and turn left". there's nothing
entertaining in that.

jim beam wrote:
> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:14:56 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:55:24 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Joe LaVigne wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>>>>>> want to?
>>>>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible,
>>>>> that's dumb. name a single vehicle innovation or invention that's
>>>>> benefited normal cars that's come from nascar. f1 otoh, where cars
>>>>> are /not/ equal, is the #1 breeding ground for vehicle technology
>>>>> in the world today. it's ancient now, but the fuel injection
>>>>> technology honda sold with its mainstream vehicles in the late 80's
>>>>> was straight off the f1 race track. nascar's a joke.
>>>> Where did I say that NASCAR innovated anything? They simply want to
>>>> have
>>>> the cars be as equal as possible on the track.
>>>>
>>>> Their goal is not (nor should it be) to do a damn thing for your car.
>>> if you drive a honda, you'd be amazed how much of it is based on
>>> competition-derived technologies. if there's no scope for innovation
>>> and testing in competition, you get to drive crap. driven a chevy
>>> lately? they dominate nascar.
>>
>> Again who gives a rat's ass? Nascar has no responsibility to create
>> innovation for grocery-getters. Their job is to put asses in the
>> seats. They do it.
>>
>>>> Their job is to pack the track with fans, and get TV ratings. They
>>>> accomplish both tasks.
>>> yeah, with b.s. hype about "jet fuel". and have you checked f1
>>> ratings? no one knows f1 here, but when i was in europe, it was
>>> /huge/.
>>
>> There was no "B.S. hype about jet fuel". A team was found to be using an
>> illegal additive in the fuel. NASCAR never mentioned "jet fuel", nor
>> would they.
>>
>> And I also don't care about Europe's TV ratings. You may have missed
>> this, but F1's ratings suck in the US whenever they are on.
>>
>>>> As for F1, they can innovate all they like. Their races are boring
>>>> follow
>>>> the leader festivals. The only interesting part is qualifying.
>>>> Once that
>>>> is set, there is almost never a serious race...
>>>>
>>>> For all of it's flaws, NASCAR is competitive on the track...
>>> like a circle jerk?
>>
>> You don't like it, that's fine. Some find a circle-track to be boring,
>> and I am fine with that. But in NASCAR, there is passing, drafting, and
>> the occasional wreck (more in a plate race). In F1, the finishes are
>> almost always dependent on the qualifying position. There is hardly ever
>> a photo-finish, and passing in a turn is almost unheard of. Not to
>> mention that, for a spectator, it is dull as hell. You see a blur of
>> cars
>> pass, then wait a while before you see anything else.
>> You watch what you like, and I'll watch what I like, but to dismiss
>> NASCAR's popularity simply because they don't make your car better is
>> just
>> plain silly...
>
> this is all about preferences. you're right, nascar has no obligation
> to do anything. it's a circus. and so is f1. but /my/ preference is
> to see an event that has multiple levels of interest. /i/ like to know
> about the vehicles and who has what. /i/ like to see technical
> advantage. dual overhead cams, electronic ignition, fuel injection,
> ventilated disk brakes, abs, shock absorbers, aerodynamics, synchromesh
> technology, lubricants, composites, safety systems, etc., etc., are
> /all/ beneficiaries of f1 competition over the years. what the
> europeans call rally driving is another major source. as for
> entertainment value, i don't think you've watched much of it. nascar is
> solid rear axles going "up aways and turn left". there's nothing
> entertaining in that.

forgot to mention - the "jet fuel" thing was per commentary on sports
radio. i was in the car out of my local f.m. radio region for a good
deal of that day, so had sports radio on a.m. on the dial. and all the
pre-race talk and interviews were about "cheating" and the use of "jet
fuel". they even had a phone interview with the driver concerned and he
used the words "jet fuel" when discussing the alleged infraction. so,
you and i know it's b.s. to use those words, but that was the way it was
presented to the public. and because it was clearly incorrect, and was
a term used by a professional driver who i think /most/ unlikely to be
so ignorant, /that/ is why i say it was media stir-em-up, not reality.
nothing like a little controversy to get a few more eyeballs on the screen.

On Feb 21, 9:12 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
snip

> this is all about preferences. you're right, nascar has no obligation
> to do anything. it's a circus. and so is f1. but /my/ preference is
> to see an event that has multiple levels of interest. /i/ like to know
> about the vehicles and who has what. /i/ like to see technical
> advantage. dual overhead cams, electronic ignition, fuel injection,
> ventilated disk brakes, abs, shock absorbers, aerodynamics, synchromesh
> technology, lubricants, composites, safety systems, etc., etc., are
> /all/ beneficiaries of f1 competition over the years. what the
> europeans call rally driving is another major source.

http://www.imsaracing.net/ ??

as for
> entertainment value, i don't think you've watched much of it. nascar is
> solid rear axles going "up aways and turn left". there's nothing
> entertaining in that.

Sometimes they don't "turn left" when they should. Some consider the
aftermath entertainment.

On Feb 20, 10:30 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
wrote:
> iwhtcimtlfmwmaom...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 3:02?am, Joe LaVigne <jlavi...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>
> >>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
> >>> want to?
> >> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
> >> outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...
>
> >> Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
>
> > I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
> > Everyone would just start using jet fuel.
>
> Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
> from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
> things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
> States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
> overhead-cam engines!)

"Professional" wrestling is popular in the US too, what does that say?

Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:30 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
> wrote:
>> iwhtcimtlfmwmaom...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 3:02?am, Joe LaVigne <jlavi...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>>>> want to?
>>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
>>>> outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...
>>>> Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
>>> I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
>>> Everyone would just start using jet fuel.
>> Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
>> from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
>> things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
>> States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
>> overhead-cam engines!)
>
> "Professional" wrestling is popular in the US too, what does that say?

That they know how to make money, too?

Are you from some other country? Do you mean to tell me you don't have
some ridiculous sport or pastime where you're from, that someone from
another country would find positively silly?

--
Mike Smith

On Feb 21, 3:34 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
wrote:
> Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 10:30 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
> > wrote:
> >> iwhtcimtlfmwmaom...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 3:02?am, Joe LaVigne <jlavi...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
> >>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
> >>>>> want to?
> >>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
> >>>> outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...
> >>>> Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
> >>> I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
> >>> Everyone would just start using jet fuel.
> >> Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
> >> from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
> >> things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
> >> States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
> >> overhead-cam engines!)
>
> > "Professional" wrestling is popular in the US too, what does that say?
>
> That they know how to make money, too?
>
> Are you from some other country? Do you mean to tell me you don't have
> some ridiculous sport or pastime where you're from, that someone from
> another country would find positively silly?

Let me put it this way, I don't see any Jenson Button stickers
plastered on vehicles that are in trailer-parks or public housing.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:58:50 +0000 (UTC), Joe LaVigne
<jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:

>
>You don't like it, that's fine. Some find a circle-track to be boring,
>and I am fine with that. But in NASCAR, there is passing, drafting, and
>the occasional wreck (more in a plate race). In F1, the finishes are
>almost always dependent on the qualifying position. There is hardly ever
>a photo-finish, and passing in a turn is almost unheard of. Not to
>mention that, for a spectator, it is dull as hell. You see a blur of cars
>pass, then wait a while before you see anything else.

I guess F1 makes greater demands on the car, the driver and the
spectators. It isn't dull if you understand what is going on. The
only way to pass in a turn (as opposed the going into a turn) is if
the turn is so wide and forgiving that multiple lines can be driven
with equal speed.

I got free tickets to an oval track race a couple years ago and was
amazed to see two cars drive side-by-side for three laps. It may be
exciting as a horse race, but obviously it isn't very demanding of the
participants.