F1 vs NASCAR: One more thing…

Scott Speed, Scuderia Toro Rosso-Cosworth, Indianapolis, 2006I had a few thoughts on how Formula One and NASCAR stack up against each other a few days ago. One thing I overlooked was the popularity of accidents.

One effect of the NASCAR regulations – possibly intentional, possibly not – is that the tightly bunched fields inevitably lead to more crashes. And there’s no denying the popularity of shunts with the paying public.

The statistics show that accidents are becoming more common every year in NASCAR. There were 24% more accidents spins in the 2005 season than 2004, and after nine races in 2006 there had been 60, 11 more than at the same time last year.

It’s just one more way in which NASCAR and F1 are irreconcilably different.

Related links

Tags: / / / /

Advert | Go Ad-free

3 comments on F1 vs NASCAR: One more thing…

  1. Dan M said on 15th June 2007, 16:30

    Again a completely biased view….. A little research would show that the COT (Car of Tomorrow for ones that refuse to educate themselves on NASCAR) was designed to cut down on accidents. They started developing this car after the death of #3. The new cars a stabilizers on the spoiler that attempted to keep the cars from spinning in when they get loose, this may be viewed as a drivers aid, but F1 shouldn’t have too many issues with that, you have a few on your cars.

    Also unlike the old cars which were based more on cutting through the air than safety, the new cars have a front end that does not allow them to get under the rear end of the car in front. This is used for the “bump and run” move where you would loosen up the car in front and then drive under him. This was a move made famous by Earnhardt and ultimately killed him.

    I am not a big Nascar fan, in fact I enjoy F1 more, but I would defend either from a such slander.

  2. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd June 2007, 9:27

    I disagree completely Dan. Yes, the Car of Tomorrow was designed to protect drivers better in the event of an accident.

    But, at the time this article was written (now almost a year ago) the statistics as illustrated by USA Today showed an increase in crashes.

    Whether that’s the case in 2007 I don’t know – but this is a topic area I intend to return to in greater depth soon.

  3. Dan said on 31st May 2008, 4:39

    Earnhardt was not killed by the bump and run. He was killed because the air was taken off his spoiler, he lost control and came across the bumper of a car just below him at his quarterpanel. You do not use the bump and run at Daytona. Ever. It’s possible you have this confused with bump drafting, but that is not why Earnhardt died either.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.