Which is more competitive?

In F1, they say you can only only overtake when your opponnet is in the pits.
In NASCAR, they say restarts mean that you only have to watch the last lap of the race as it is the only lap that matters.

Choose your side. F1 or NASCAR?, NASCAR or F1?

 

Nascar puts the whole track in the front of the spectator. An "oval" if you will. Usually all left turns so only 1/2 of the cars take any punishment.
F1 has everything but unless you are watching a film a spectator just views the portion of the course he deems "the most interesting."
I've always felt for oversixty years that the history and viewing of Formula 1 has been the top of the sport. I enjoy the "big cars" next and then the "Midgets."
Nascar is or was exciting when it was unlimited. Now that car specs are universal and top speed regulated it has become less interesting and I believe the fans are more interested in the accidents than any racing skill.

 

Good call.

But wouldn't racing skill really show when all drivers drive cars with the same specs?

 

With possibly two cars in a race, but with a field of 33 the only passing done would be during the accidents before the yellow flag was waved. The race would be won during the "draw" or fastest lap at time trials during NASCAR or Indianapolis type cars system.
In the Big cars or the midgets, the fastest cars in the time trials are lined up from the rear.
I believe the old use of limiting displacement led for more competition and excitement for the fans. Actually, it was like everything else today. The guy with the "bucks" usually was and is the winner.
The best racing I have ever viewed was the type of "big car" (Indianapolis size cars with usually Ford flat head V8's) running at all the "dirt tracks" at California State Fair grounds, in the fifties. Some times you would find an "Offy" or "D.O. Howell" under the hood. The Howell was a poor mans Offy. A Hispano Suiza aircraft V8 engine was cut in half making it a four cylinder double overhead cam engine that was high turning like the offy.
You could go to 33 races all over the state during the season and see 33 different winners. (and an awfull lot of dirt thrown at the turns.)
Two of my favorite movies are still "To Please A Lady" with Clark Gable and "Killer McCoy" with Mickey Rooney. (albeit, a little "corny" but with great racing shots.) And of course "Grand Prix" for F1 and the Steve McQueen "Le Mans" for "Grand Prix. Compare that to a flick like "Days of Thunder" with Tom Cruise and NASCAR and it isn't even close for racing excitement.

 

I would say it depends on how you measure "competitive". Is it how many different winners in a season? How many lead changes per race? Is it average margin of victory? I'm no expert on F1 butI believe NASCAR would have the advantage in all those categories. F1 has rules too and last time I checked all those cars look pretty much the same. And they have some pretty spectacular wrecks too.

 

Back again after a busy week which includes a day dedicated to changing my ride's auto parts. Anyway, competitive meaning which sport really allow drivers to showcase thier skills.

With a lot of money being poured into these sports, it's sometimes hard to see who is really the most talented as there would be drivers who are talented enough but given a subpar ride. Now, my question about being competitive is where would you see a "real race" between drivers to adequately gauge their talent.

 

I don't think such a place exists. There will always be variations between cars, especially when they are prepared by different teams. Theoretically they would have to be in identically prepared cars, but then you'd have the IROC series and thatnever really proved anything. Personally, I think, to find the best driver, put them in the worst cars. Anybody can drive a great handling car. Only a good driver can drive a bad handling car. Thats the way NASCAR used to be; big, heavy, boxy, production based sedans on small tires with no spoilers. That was racing. Now, NASCAR is trying to make all the cars the same to better showcase the drivers skill. And thats commendable, if not practical. I say, take away the front and rear spoilers and put them back on 8" wide tires. Then we'll see who the drivers really are.
F-1 has always been a technology driven series. They are by far, probably, the most difficult cars to drive. It takes a phenomenally talented driver to pilot one of those rocketships. I actually paid attention to that series last year. With Michael Schumacher gone it was a much more interesting fight for the championship. How do you think he would fare racing in NASCAR?

 

I have to say that I find racing sort of boring today. I believe NASCAR fans really do go to aee the accidents. Not to see anyone hurt but to see the exciting recoveries when a couple cars tangle with themselves or the wall.
But I have to tell you that when I was a kid growing up in the "thirties I couldn't get enough of formula one stories. Both fact and fiction. The drivers in Europe were the champions from all over the world and were hand picked to drive the factory cars. Ferrari, Mercedes, Auto Union, Maserati, Alpha Romero, Buggati.It was "ego", "prestige," and worldwide business, all in one.
Then shortly after the war the advent of Porsche, and Jaguar with a few McLarens to the list and even a couple American drivers.
Somehow, I don't think that "golden age" will ever be replaced. I know names like Nuvalari, and Juan Fangio are rarely mentioned today and people only stare at you if you mention Stirling Moss or Phil Ford.
And with the numbers of cars needing our highways today even in Italy, there will never be another "Mille Miglia."

 

Lol. Nice one about the worst cars. Just like the 24 Hours of Lemons eh?

Good for you hyperion to have grown up in that era. I would love to see drivers of old battle it out on the tracks. As for the great Fangio, I think he was only mentioned a lot of times when Schumi was about to beat his record.

And as for Schumi in NASCAR, I don't think he would have had the same success he enjoyed in F1, his performance in the ROC proved that he can be beaten outside of F1. Heck, he even failed to win against Alonso twice in a row.

Now, How about making the topic here go something like... Who is the best driver ever? Of course, apart from yourself.

 

NASCAR is not what is was, since NASCAR descided to control almost every aspect of the car and the way the drivers can drive them. The gerneric cars make hard to know what the car in the lead is if you can't see the engine makers decal somewhere on it. F1 it has always been about pride and how much are you willing spend it win. IROC is more of a NASCAR type deal because it's mostly ovals. In days of Riverside International Speeday in Ca. watching the "big cars", grand prix, or IROC; it was far more exciting. It might interesting to see the Daytona IROC run on the road course vs the NASCAR oval. But I admit I enjoy the raw sometimes "evil" rumble of the big US V8 over the whine of F1.