• SARGEx117@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll take F1 over Nascar any day.

    Disclaimer: I’ve never sat down to watch either, but if the choices are “turn left” or “winding, twisting course” I think I’m going with the one that has more variety.

    • frank@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Massive F1 fan here.

      It’s more of an engineering sport than a driving sport. Don’t get me wrong– the drivers are absolutely top notch and do an incredible job and it’s entertaining to watch. But since it’s sooooo engineering and development based, you cars that perform different on different tracks (cuz of elevation, temperature, track design, surface).

      It’s pretty neat; worth a watch sometime!

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is like the argument that football is exciting because it’s a highly strategic sport: the most interesting and exciting things about it are happening on the sidelines in the coaches’ heads while 40% of the time nothing is happening on the field.

        So if the most exciting part of the race is the engineering that went into the car, then what’s the point of watching the race? You’d be probably be more interested watching Bill Nye.

      • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know I don’t have the skills to drive one (at least not yet lol) but those things are engineering marvels.

        I’ve always wanted to see one invert at speed to see if their downforce really is enough.

        I can’t imagine all the materials sciences that go on behind the scenes.

        • frank@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So much cool matsci!

          The exhaust is no longer titanium (it’s inconel) because they 3D print the complicated bits of it now instead of traditional forming techniques

        • frank@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure what you’re referring to but not at all! It’s the inverse of a “spec series” (which still benefit greatly from engineering) where you get handed parts to use. Teams can design the vast majority of parts themselves and do

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure which one, but I think it is F1 where making car too good is banned.

            • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are a bunch of restrictions in F1, which largely make it harder to make fast cars. But think of it the other way around: Those restrictions make the engineering harder, and all teams have the same restrictions. That means you have to optimise even more within the limitations you have, because you’re not allowed to make some of the “easy” optimisations like cutting weight by removing the roll cage.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the difference between a marathon and an obstacle course.

      Nascar has some really crazy shit, like building a twisted car to turn left, canting the engines to perform better in turns, making the car as flat as possible on the right to get better aero when up against the wall. They do some wild stuff with the cars, and stretching the rules or “cheating” was, and probably is, a huge part of the sport.

      When it comes to the racing itself, the track layout is usually designed with top sustained speed in mind, which means that a lot of the driver’s finishing position is determined by their ability to battle it out with the other drivers, instead of their ability to optimize the course. Not to mention, that simple “left turn” is deceptively complex. Drivers account for track conditions, like foreign debris, rubber “marbles”, bank angle, and temperature, atmospheric conditions like air density, car conditions like damage, fuel, tire wear and tire temp, and race conditions like remaining laps, position and proximity to other drivers, when they make that “simple left”. Throw in make-or-break pitstops, where the car gets fuel, tires and repairs in less than 10 seconds, and the fact that almost all of this is happening at 170+ MPH, and you realize that oval racing isn’t just a bunch of hilljacks turning left, but a modern gladiator-style chariot race.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No hard feelings. I’m not a big Nascar guy either, but I went to ~10 Brickyard 400s when I was younger. Totally agree with your sentiment about mild left turn and car shuffling. If that was all I could see, it would be pretty boring. I have the same feeling about horse racing. Just zero appreciation for the Kentucky derby. Just a bunch of multi-millionaires’ horses running around with some other dude on their backs in my opinion. I’m sure there is a complexity that I’m missing, but I’m happy just not knowing.