13-03-08, 12:11 AM
I'm not a nascar apologist (though I am a fan these days), but it's infinitely more skillful that you're giving credit for. I used to make all the same arguments as a dyed in the wool F1 fan.
Let's face it, most F1 races are as exciting as watching paint dry. Even live. I sat on the inside of Copse for the '96 British GP and the only exciting bit was when Damon Hill's wheel fell off and Jacques went through to win (yeah, the rest of the stand wasn't too happy about our cheering). I've been to the USGP, slightly more exciting. The Canadian GP is usually one of the few good ones on the calendar.
Even without traction control and a standard ECU, the car does so much of the work for the driver in F1. In NASCAR you've got the throttle, brake and h-pattern gear shift. Driver skill plays a far bigger role.
It's obviously comparing apples to oranges, but one thing to remember is a F1 race is a 200 mile sprint, with 21 opponents, while a NASCAR race is a 500 mile marathon with 42 opponents.
Let's face it, most F1 races are as exciting as watching paint dry. Even live. I sat on the inside of Copse for the '96 British GP and the only exciting bit was when Damon Hill's wheel fell off and Jacques went through to win (yeah, the rest of the stand wasn't too happy about our cheering). I've been to the USGP, slightly more exciting. The Canadian GP is usually one of the few good ones on the calendar.
Even without traction control and a standard ECU, the car does so much of the work for the driver in F1. In NASCAR you've got the throttle, brake and h-pattern gear shift. Driver skill plays a far bigger role.
It's obviously comparing apples to oranges, but one thing to remember is a F1 race is a 200 mile sprint, with 21 opponents, while a NASCAR race is a 500 mile marathon with 42 opponents.
If God gives you lemons you should find a new God