Why Motorcycle Road Racing is better than Nascar..

[EX#996]

... is the title of Renee's report that she is doing for school.  Part of her assignment is to get information from other sources.  She figures that the best source for this information is all of you.

So, let your opinions be known.  Renee will really appreciate it.

Dawn   :)

[Super Dave]

Less wheels?

Well, it's very active.

In any four wheel sport, the individual in control of the vehicle is inside the vehicle.  They are just a piece of balast.

In motorcycle racing, the rider can alter the combined center of gravity of the bike and rider, thus making it go faster, or slower, than another rider, etc.

Visually, isn't it stunning to see some of the things one sees at a race track?  Having been a regular AMA competitor some time ago, I've seen things that are just about unbelieveable.  

[SliderPhoto]

It's like comparing a two-dimensional picture with a three-dimensional model. Bikes are so much more exciting to watch. They lean, they wheelie, they slide. You have closer contact with the racer, you see everything both on and off track. When was the last time you went in the pits at a Nascar race?

Let me know if she needs some images.

[251am]

 Motorcycle road racing is better than Nascar because:
    a. Putting together a Nascar team requires a few   million dollars. Putting together an AMA team requires much less money.(Have not actually heard an AMA team $$ estimate.)
    b. Nascar=turn left, turn left, turn left. Moto= true diversity in track courses.
    c. Less environmental impact in moto racing.
This is actually a tough one for me as I don't watch ANY Nascar. Watching people eternally turn left in an oval? As exciting as watching the paint dry or the PGA ;D. I know there's a few Nascar fans here that will take exception to MHO, but GO RENEE GO.   :) :) :)          

[Jack_Brock]

While I feel strongly about the subject, good luck to her proving this to the general public.  I gave up years ago.  

I guess my stongest point would be you have to have skills and be in shape to roadrace a motorcycle, neither appears to be true of Nascar.  While there is some talent in Nascar, it is not the determining factor.

Again, good luck to her!

[GTG304]

A big part of the comparision is the definition of "better".  Better from who's perspective?  The participant's, the spectator's or the sponsors? As an international, national or local event?  There's the comparision of the technology of the machines.  Or, the skill levels of the racers.  What type of fans do the series organisers cater to?

IMO, NASCAR is about putting sponsor's logos infront of as many knuckle dragging, beer can throwing folks who couldn't find an apex if someone nailed their foot to it.   Then again, if someone could show me the apex out of the infield at Daytona I'd appreciate it.  Couldn't quite get it right this past Feb.

[Dawn]

While I feel strongly about the subject, good luck to her proving this to the general public.  I gave up years ago.  

Again, good luck to her!

Personally I think she's just trying to convert the boys in her class (she's in 6th grade).  Fortunately there's another motorcycle racer in her class (dirt track) so she has some support there.

Dawn   :)

[Super Dave]

Motorcycle road racing is better than Nascar because:
    a. Putting together a Nascar team requires a few   million dollars. Putting together an AMA team requires much less money.(Have not actually heard an AMA team $$ estimate.)

But why?  37 events or so in NASCAR vs 11 in AMA.  What's the viewership for a NASCAR event on TV and in person?  Much larger.  That costs more $$.  

A fair AMA program, even for Supersport, should cost someone about $70k.  That's a, what, twelve lap race with no pit stops?  For sheer on track exposure, NASCAR still has it.  

b. Nascar=turn left, turn left, turn left. Moto= true diversity in track courses.

Sears Point (Infineon), and Watkins Glenn are road courses.  It's usually part of the series.

   c. Less environmental impact in moto racing.
This is actually a tough one for me as I don't watch ANY Nascar. Watching people eternally turn left in an oval? As exciting as watching the paint dry or the PGA ;D. I know there's a few Nascar fans here that will take exception to MHO, but GO RENEE GO.   :) :) :)          

Well, you've got to race an oval before giving up on it.  Oval dirt track racing is pretty exciting.  There are only so many corners, so if you're no on, you're out of the game.  Certainly tightens the field.  

Yes, Nextel Cup is kind of an endurance race (back to cost...crew, tires, motors, etc.).  So, teams/drivers work together to position themselves to make a run at the end.  With people having a short attention span, NASCAR can be "boring" to the not so informed.  The beginning can be a little exciting with some drivers trying to move up quick to get with the lead pack and stay out of trouble.  Staying out of trouble is the trick...bad motors, bad suspension set up, bad tire choices.  You might have the best car, but it might not be so good during the race.

So, back to bikes.  

Is their a romance between the "man & machine"?  Yeah, isn't that the beauty of it?

[Steviebee]

Why is road racing better than NASCAR ?

Because, regular Joe Smoes like us can go out and with anfordable budget, Road Race.  I have raced on the same race tracks, with a machine that is very similar to what the Profesionals use.

To me that is a dream come true!

Let's see the average Joe buy a stock car and go race on a super speedway.

[gpracer171]

Super Dave,

Thought I would not consider myself a NASCAR fan, I have watched, studied, and understand the game. There is  skill. However, the cars are designed to turn both directions and they do it 2 times per year. I do  watch the raod course races and would watch all of them if they did what the car was designed to do every race. The one observation I have noticed it that you find the really good drives at the 2 raod courses. There is an entirely different group of driver up front in those races. Even Trans Am hired guns like Boris Siad (not sure of the spelling).

But back tot the question,

I think it is interesting that if you look at NASCAR, the rule limit the cars in preformance, both speed and handleing, in the name of good racing. I find it interesting that they do not look to rider safety and best performance in the racing rules. Mario Andretti was a great race car drive and did tr NASCAR. he quit because the cars handled so badly. I think that there is an angle for you daughter's report in this fact. i think that they should be building good racing and displaying what is possible in cars, instead of createing an acident waiting to happen, which is exactly what they are trying to do, because it sells seats. I think there is something in the purity that was lost in that myself.

Another point, if if you look globally, euopeans completely do not understand the draw of NASCAR. In General, europeans are very informed about racing and it is much larger there and GP racing in general is the highest form of racing in other parts of the world.

[digitalRoost]

For my 2 cents, here's my take....from the spectator's perspective. There are too many reasons and perspectives on why we as riders think it's better, highest among them probably being the fact that we're doing it...DUH!

From a spectator's perspective, there are WAY more passes [possible] in motorcycle racing. In car racing, often times the track is too narrow to get 4 or 5 wide going through a turn (which I have seen MANY times). The excitement of lots of passing, rider error being more visible, and dynamic moves (sliding the rear, etc) makes watching motorcycles better than watching Nascar or even Formula 1 for that matter.

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

How ironic.  My wife and I were just having this conversation at dinner last night!  Personally, I think NASCAR has got us beat hands down.  I don't like this one bit, but fans and sponsors voting with their wallets prove that it's true.
This world is dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.  Everything from the speed our cars are allowed to travel on the road to the bottles that our pills come in have been engineered to protect the people with the least intelligence and talent.  There is no reward for being brighter or more creative than the herd, because the herd dictates the rules.  NASCAR, then, is a sport for the herd.  The engines, tires and aerodynamics are carefully regulated to keep the speeds and closeness of competition right where NASCAR wants them, so there is little to no room for innovation.  The point is to create a racing series with cars that mimic what consumers find on the showroom floor, so that Joe Average percieves that he too could be a competitor.
Isn't it ironic then that motorcycle racing actually IS what NASCAR purports to be?  Joe Average really CAN go buy a sportbike off the showroom floor and race it.  Obviously, it takes way more talent to race a bike than to race a stock car.  Turn a Hayden or a Bostrom loose in a stock car for an afternoon at an oval, and I'll bet they would be within a second of pole by day's end.  How would Dale Jr. fair after an afternoon on one of their bikes at a road course?  Sure there are things like setup, tire and fuel conservation, drafting, race strategy, ect. in NASCAR, but we deal with those things too.
In the end, NASCAR is an artificially managed show that is created for mass consumption by the mindless herds.  As a result, any reasonably talented pilot could do very well in NASCAR with the right team.  This would not be as true if the cars weren't so tamed down by restrictor plates, tire size and aerodynamics, but then the show wouldn't be as fun for Joe Average to watch.  And remember that Joe thinks he could drive one of them there stock cars iffin he had the chance.  Do any of us, even the most talented of us motorcycle racers, just think we could hop into a F1 car and kick butt?  NO, because those cars are unlimited, just like our motorcycles and quite unlike NASCAR.  
NASCAR is a parade designed to display the names of it's sponsors for a few hours while the fans all get liquored up enough to cheer the five lap sprint race at the end.  Sadly, this carefully orchistrated formula has the widest fan base in motorsports, while few people give a rat's ass about motorcycle racing.  I think this is because Joe Average won't ride a sport bike, but does drive a car.  So unfortunately, Rene's point is unprovable.  NASCAR is better, because it appeals to the average majority that makes up the herd.  As a result, it rakes in big spectator money and pays better than motorcycle racing.  Motorcycle racing is accessable, affordable, much more difficult to do, and free of rules that are designed to spice up the show and increase the closeness of the field, but these very advantages are bike racing's downfall.  Joe Average WANTS the NASCAR genetically engineered show, and writes bike racers off as suicidal looneys.  Joe wouldn't go 200mph on a bike for a million dollars, but he can sure picture himself strapped into a roll cage at that speed.
NASCAR wins because it appeals to the masses.  The masses represent the biggest pile of money, and money is what drives professional sports.  Few spectators have the courage to invision themselves as motorcycle racers, so the fan base and money that goes with it is not there.  This is why NASCAR is huge, while motorcycle racing is small.