I would just like to comment about something that has disturbed me for sometime now. I have been scrutinizing what rpm2night has been saying about F1 versus their take on CART NASCAR and all the other american racing series. Scott Pruett commented on how "Amercia has all these good racing series." Does good mean MONEYMAKER for each respective series or does good mean good enough to challenge international racing???

I don't agree that CART or NASCAR are "good." Not at the level of F1 anyways. CART has a scant number of americans driving. Many of these drivers who are international, grow up on road courses driving go-karts capable of well over 100mph+ nearly 150mph. They continually race on road courses evolving from karts to open wheeled racers(F3, F3000, Formula Ford, Palmer Audi, take your pick). Then all of a sudden CART or NASCAR hires them. CART cars are capable of 230 mph (on ovals only) and all they do is drive in CIRCLES making 4 left turns.
What is competitive, driving in circles making 4 lefts or trying to handle the car itself(which should not be a problem for a driver raised on road courses)???

Just think, one is raised on road courses and then professionally they move to a sport that is basically based on making 4 lefts. I MENTION 4 lefts because it is possible for a driver to win a title in CART or NASCAR without ever winning a title on a road course (case in point, Kenny "give me a break" Brack!!! TO me that is just SWEET...not COMPETITIVE as they claim....

How is CART competitive when, there are so many accidents per race??? and some of these accidents are caused by people like michael andretti???

How is CART competitive when Bruno Junquiera wins only because michael andretti and some other driver get tangled up and lose their positions???

How is CART more competitive when their race tracks are ILL-Prepared??? Rockingham and the first race of the season in Mexico(flying marbles) F1 must be laughing at the american series.

How is CART more competitive when F1 is run more Professionally and with better race tracks and safe race tracks.

How is CART more competitve when Many of CARTS drivers are in CART ONLY because they tried F1 early in their lives and couldn't HACK it??? (Roberto Moreno, Michael Andretti, Alex Zanardi, Christian Fittipaldi.)

How is CART more competitive when all ovals tracks look the same and road couse racing is FROWNED upon, 4 LEFTS come on!!!

How is CART/NASCAR MORE Competitive when in every NASCAR race you have people hitting each other, RUBBING IS NOT RACING!???!!! People in INDY hit also, less so though!

The key to competitive racing are the Race tracks they race on and the stresses they put on the race car, the driver, and the team.
Is CART really that competitive because all CART cars are "the same" and all they do is weave in and out of place on an oval. Sure CART and NASCAR are difficult and competitive, but how is F1 NOT MORE COMPETITIVE???

when i was watching the usgp, it amazed me how in practice montoya went up to 335 kmh and placed 3rd or 6th and michael schumacher and mika hakkinen were about 10 kmh LESS and YET were placed higher in position...This example is what racing is all about who DRIVES FASTER NOT WHOSE CAR IS FASTER!!!

F1 must be laughing at the american racing series....why don't CART just give in all ready and design their cars just like F1 and have RACE TRACKS not closed off PUBLIC STREETS>>>

As a born and raised American myself, I laugh at american racing, Americans can learn much from F1...!!!

 

Maybe you are referring to IRL whenever you said CART? Maybe not.

In my opinion CART is a very good series. I like it a lot, as opposed to Nascar and irl. The reason why I "like" the other two is only because it is after all still racing.

You can not compare F1 to CART. Ferrari's budget for one year is 300 million dollars, while Target's Chip Ganassi's budget for example is around 10 million per year. That's not even a third of Schumacher salary! This great difference in budgets also carries over in all other aspect of the sport. Track preparation, world wide media coverage, etc are all substantially higher for F1 than for CART. If CART would somehow reach F1's level, then F1 would not be where it's at now. There can only be a certain amount of money going around in the world of motorsports.

Sad part is that nascar controls maybe 90%+ of all motorsport money in the US... which give little room for other series to expand, not to mention any road racing series. Fact: the last 10 or so finishing positions in a regular nascar race each receive about $25-30 000 in prize money. Keep in mind this is for coming in last place! The total purse for a roadrace World Challenge weekend, GT and Touring combined is about the same amount. Goes to show what the American public prefers at the present moment.

 

What is your point? If its that CART is less professional than F1 well duhhh. F1 has millions more fans and therefore millions more sponsorship dollars so of course they are more professional.

Regards,
Alan

 

Where to start.... (forgive my mispelling of driver's names below)

When an F1 race is run, who has a chance to win? 6 drivers: Schumaker (Michael), Barrichello, Coultard, Hakkinen, Schumaker (Ralf), or Montoya.

When a CART race is run, who has a chance to win? Brack, DeFerren, Castrioneves, Tracy, Franchitti, Papis, Zanardi (until recent events), Andretti, Fittipaldi, da Matta, Tagliani, Carpentier. Junqueira, Servia, Kannan, etc.

Therefore, they have justification to say that CART is more competitive. On any given week, a large number of CART drivers can win. F1 cannot say the same (or at least that has been the case over the last few years). Don't get me wrong, I live for F1, and I'll only watch CART if it is on and convenient - but it is more competitive.

CART does a mix of about half ovals and half road courses, so I don't understand why you are saying that they only turn left. Rumor has it that they are moving further and further away from ovals however. They are trying to distinguish themselves from the IRL, and gain more international respect.

As for the accidents disrupting the results - do you watch F1? Of course they have wrecks! They have BIG wrecks. Those wrecks are sometimes caused by people with excellent reputations as well. Have you ever seen Michael Schumaker swerve towards the car next to him on the grid to hold his position?

And the wrecks and mechanical problems also play a HUGE role in F1 results. How about Montoya getting hit from behind when he lapped Verstappen? You don't think that wreck changed the results of the race?

As for the USGP, Montoya had a good chance of winning (being on a one stop strategy while Rubens was on a two) until his car had a hydraulic failure. His car was faster, and that is how he got by Schumaker.

I also can't figure out why you don't think CART cars run road course tracks. How about Laguna Seca, Mid-Ohio, Road America, etc. ?

I think that F1 has better drivers, I think that F1 has better tracks, I think that F1 has better cars. CART is more competitive, and it isn't all that bad. Believe me when I tell you that none of us could pilot a car like that on a street circuit! So enjoy the different kinds of racing, and appreciate it for what it is.

Matt

 

I agree that NASCAR sucks, but ...

Uh, CART runs on more than just ovals. 9 ovals and 12 road courses on the '01 schedule.

How many accidents does CART have compared to F1? Do you really know, or are you just making assumptions?

Oh yeah, F1 doesn't have accidents. Cars just harmlessly spin off and get stuck in the gravel and their race is over.

Was it this year or last where the sign over the track in Brazil almost fell on Jean Alesi's car?

Do you have any facts to back this up? How are F1 tracks "better" and "safe," and races are run "more professionally."

Mario Andretti, Nigel Mansell and Nelson Piquet raced in CART after F1.

Oh yeah, Mansell obviously couldn't hack F1 seeing as how he switched to CART the year after he won the F1 championship.

Ever hear of a little race in Monaco?

 

I dunno, you watched the show, not me. NASCAR is both entertaining and moneymaking. I'd say it's doubly good.

What does this have to do with good or bad? I would contend that a sport with a higher degree of internationalism is better. More competition, more potential fans (which equals revenue), and more special interest stories (which Americans seem so intent on producing).

I think you've never tried circle track racing. It ain't as easy as it looks.

Again, so what? Is WRC not good because they race in dirt instead of on pavement? Different sports with different skill sets.

Accidents occur when cars a racing closely. There are few accidents in F1 because there is little passing, little traffic, and the cars are basically all set in their positions after the first lap.

What does the actions of track owners have to do with competitiveness of the drivers/teams? There is no logic in your statement.

Again, nothing to do with competitiveness. Some of the most competitive racing I've ever seen is at the amateur level in spec classes. We aren't professionals and don't race on F1 circuits, yet we have more passing than F1.

No one will argue that F1 is the pinnacle of road racing. Again, this has nothing to do with competitiveness.

All ovals are not the same. There are huge differences between short track, super speedways, tri-ovals, etc.

Again, contact is a function of the distance between cars. If they are close, they will make contact more frequently. This can be seen at all levels of motorsports. Close = competitive. F1 cars do not race close to each other, do not pass often, and are therefore LESS competitive.


I'll agree with items 2, 3, and 4. I don't see how item 1 is relevant. You could put four great drivers into Yugos and make them race around by neighborhood. The racing would undoubtably be competitive and entertaining.

F1 is less competitive because teams that find an edge are not obliged to share it. So they go faster and win all the time. This is anti-competitive. Team's budgets play a larger role in F1 because the rules are more liberal. I could be the best driver in the world, but unless I have $300,000,000 per year to spend on developing a car, I won't win. This is also anti-competitive.

That makes no sense. Obviously Schumie and Mika have faster cars. F1 is not about top speed, it is about average speed. We don't know how different the cars were, maybe Montoya is a better driver, but prefers to race on street radials?

I doubt it. Do you think Cal Ripken laughs at the bush league guys or the Japanese league? Nope.

What does racing on streets have to do with anything? Last time I checked, one of F1's most prominent races was held on closed public streets. If you don't know which one I'm talking about, then you need to go back to grammar school.

You have just proven yourself to be a small-minded ignoramus.


[Modified by Crack Monkey, 7:22 AM 10/5/2001]

 

You make a lot of comments that can't possibly all be responded to. I agree with Hracer, though, I think you mean the IRL. The majority of CART tracks are road courses. All IRL courses are ovals.

The reason CART maintains Ovals on the schedule is because it draws in the fans. Attendance at road circuits is lower. The main reason is viewing. On a road course, all you can see is one corner at a time. At an oval, you can see the whole track. If I'm paying $75 for a ticket, I want to see the whole race.

If you don't think that F1 doesn't race on streets, think again. I can think of at least one street circuit, probably the most famous of all, the Grand Prix of Monaco.

But your main points are that CART isn't competitive. I don't think that "competitive" is the word you want to use. Any sport where competition is close makes it competitive.

According to your theory, Autocross is not competitive because we're competing in a parking lot, even though we have drivers finishing within thousandths of a second of each other. If the Autocross is held on a road course, that makes it more competitive, according to what you state.

The key to competitive racing is matching properly classed cars with closely matched drivers. Any Pro racing series does this with a ton of checks for competion. NASCAR's rules specifically keep all the cars very equal. CART is a little more relaxed, followed by F1. But don't get me wrong. F1 too has a ton of checks (probably more than any other series) to keep competition close, but somehow they still don't keep competition close.

Truth is, I get bored knowing that before every F1 racing, the colors on the podium at the end will 95% of the time be gray and red with the occasional white. Ferrari and McLaren have close competition between them, but they leave behind the rest of the field. What makes that competitive?

You mention accidents. Cart seemingly has very few accidents when compared to the IRL and NASCAR. F1 has few accidents between drivers, but many more vehicle failures. Still, F1 has a good share. Seems to me Schumacher was taken out of a recent race because someone decided to drive up the back end of his car.

You also mention the drivers that "couldn't cut it." Some of those guys needed more development time. The politics of F1 are that the primary driver gets everything that he needs. If you aren't that driver, then you get whatever's left over. Sometimes, the secondary driver manages to shine (Ferrari and McLaren), but usually it's hard to turn that position into anything. Secondary drivers come and go frequently. Recently, Zanardi was put in this situation being a secondary driver for a poorly performing team. If the team isn't patient with him, which they weren't, then they'll easily let him go when they have problems.

I can't really comment on what Pruett was talking about, but I can tell you that the only NASCAR is a money maker. I don't believe the IRL has yet to cut a profit on anything other than the Indy 500. Otherwise, the stands are empty and the TV ratings low. CART is doing better, but barely making a profit. At least the stands are usually full, which means the ratings are better. CART moving to Speedvision next year, though, may reduce its ratings since many people don't get Speedvision. Of course, I figured NASCAR would drop ratings moving to FOX since there are a number of cities that don't have a local FOX station.


[Modified by Shmeek, 9:49 AM 10/5/2001]