- 10 Mar 08, 04:04#35186
NASCAR in general seems to have a snobbish attitude towards any open-wheel driver who comes into 'their' sport. Juan Montoya, Jacques Villeneuve, Dario Franchitti, Sam Hornish and Patrick Carpentier have endured endless bitching, sniping and questions about their driving ability, just because they come from F1 and the IRL. Between them, they have 4 Indy 500 wins, 18 Grand Prix wins, 1 Formula One World Championship, 4 IRL championships, 2 CART championships and 2 NASCAR victories. If this doesn't convince the NASCAR faithful I don't know what will. I think because 4 of them are foreigners a lot of old-school fans are just not giving them a chance. They are prepared to give a young American kid coming from midgets through modified, through trucks and N-wide years and years of patience waiting for them to improve. But when an open-wheel driver takes one of 'their' places, there is uproar.
Last season, when Sam Hornish was struggling to qualify for races, many NASCAR fans said that he just wasn't good enough. But they probably didn't notice that half the time he was only 0.3-0.7 off pole, and it was really the top 35 rule that was keeping him out of the show. Now granted, these drivers have had a tendency to bang the walls and find themselves in the barriers occasionally, but this is part of their learning process.
Jaqcues Villeneuve has been unlucky in NASCAR. Unlucky with the criticism he has recieved, despite his honest gesture at Talladega to start at the back. Bill Davis Racing didn't give him enough time; I don't care if he had sponsorship issues, he would have qualified for most of the races this year, just because of his natural talent, and his ability to pull out a terrifically fast lap in quali. Johnny Benson will not get into as many races as Jacques would have. I hope he comes back to prove everyone wrong.
Montoya has had bad luck, a few accidents, a few bad performances, and a few good performances, including two wins (in seperate series), and yet many are still not convinced. His team isn't a front runner, and yet he does a very good job. Surely a CART championship, an Indy 500 win, 95 grands prix, 7 wins and now two NASCAR wins would be enough to convince the fans. Obviously not. I hope he makes the Chase for the Cup just to annoy a lot of them.
The difference with many F1 fans is, that they tend to appreciate others' achievements more. Sebastien Bourdais has won 4 Champ Car championships in a row. He comes to Toro Rosso and some people have their doubts, however they are willing to give him a chance to prove himself. The problem in NASCAR, is if a guy doesn't do well to begin with from open-wheel, he automatically isn't good enough. I guarantee, if Michael Schumacher was in a Hendrick Chevy, he wouldn't probably get into the top 10 for a few races. Would that mean he's not good enough? No. Just as if Bourdais gets beaten by Vettel next week, it doesn't mean that he isn't good enough.
There are many F1 fans who dismiss NASCAR as easy, and uninteresting because of the circuits they race on. I bet nearly anyone could run one fast lap at Daytona. Whereas hardly anyone could do a flying lap of monaco without ending up in the wall, or indeed the harbour. NASCAR has basic tracks, but the races are all about feeling the car, and planning according to how it feels, and taking the appropriate lines etc. This is in contrast with F1, where it is more reactionary, and the circuits offer far more of a challenge in themselves. F1 is technology and development, NASCAR is parity and exciting racing. NASCAR has longer races, and possibly more concentration is needed, because of the longer time period.
I think the sports are equal in many ways, except F1 enjoys a greater global audience. F1 drivers CAN cut it in NASCAR, and NASCAR drivers, I'm sure, can cut it in F1, although it would help if they had open-wheel experience first. Jeff Gordon proved he could do well when he tested the Williams with JPM in 2003 I think.
Last season, when Sam Hornish was struggling to qualify for races, many NASCAR fans said that he just wasn't good enough. But they probably didn't notice that half the time he was only 0.3-0.7 off pole, and it was really the top 35 rule that was keeping him out of the show. Now granted, these drivers have had a tendency to bang the walls and find themselves in the barriers occasionally, but this is part of their learning process.
Jaqcues Villeneuve has been unlucky in NASCAR. Unlucky with the criticism he has recieved, despite his honest gesture at Talladega to start at the back. Bill Davis Racing didn't give him enough time; I don't care if he had sponsorship issues, he would have qualified for most of the races this year, just because of his natural talent, and his ability to pull out a terrifically fast lap in quali. Johnny Benson will not get into as many races as Jacques would have. I hope he comes back to prove everyone wrong.
Montoya has had bad luck, a few accidents, a few bad performances, and a few good performances, including two wins (in seperate series), and yet many are still not convinced. His team isn't a front runner, and yet he does a very good job. Surely a CART championship, an Indy 500 win, 95 grands prix, 7 wins and now two NASCAR wins would be enough to convince the fans. Obviously not. I hope he makes the Chase for the Cup just to annoy a lot of them.
The difference with many F1 fans is, that they tend to appreciate others' achievements more. Sebastien Bourdais has won 4 Champ Car championships in a row. He comes to Toro Rosso and some people have their doubts, however they are willing to give him a chance to prove himself. The problem in NASCAR, is if a guy doesn't do well to begin with from open-wheel, he automatically isn't good enough. I guarantee, if Michael Schumacher was in a Hendrick Chevy, he wouldn't probably get into the top 10 for a few races. Would that mean he's not good enough? No. Just as if Bourdais gets beaten by Vettel next week, it doesn't mean that he isn't good enough.
There are many F1 fans who dismiss NASCAR as easy, and uninteresting because of the circuits they race on. I bet nearly anyone could run one fast lap at Daytona. Whereas hardly anyone could do a flying lap of monaco without ending up in the wall, or indeed the harbour. NASCAR has basic tracks, but the races are all about feeling the car, and planning according to how it feels, and taking the appropriate lines etc. This is in contrast with F1, where it is more reactionary, and the circuits offer far more of a challenge in themselves. F1 is technology and development, NASCAR is parity and exciting racing. NASCAR has longer races, and possibly more concentration is needed, because of the longer time period.
I think the sports are equal in many ways, except F1 enjoys a greater global audience. F1 drivers CAN cut it in NASCAR, and NASCAR drivers, I'm sure, can cut it in F1, although it would help if they had open-wheel experience first. Jeff Gordon proved he could do well when he tested the Williams with JPM in 2003 I think.
Mainly supporting Sauber, Renault and McLaren
Apex Racing League member.
Twitter: @woody2goody_uk
Apex Racing League member.
Twitter: @woody2goody_uk
