NASCAR vs Formula One

As much as I am loathe to admit it, GI Mark is a good friend of mine. True, I wrote a man-crush post about him, but mostly that was under coercion - I was driving to NJ from OH at the time and cannot be held responsible for the byproducts of inescapable boredom.

In years past, my only exposure to motorsports was via MarioKart 64. Real-life car racing seemed boring in comparison, because there were no banana peels or turtle shells with which the racers might spice up the action.

Mark, however, showed me the light. He's been incredibly patient, patient in ways that defy human limits, but he's taught me to appreciate motorsports. He's introduced me to Top Gear, and he's described strategy in MotoGP.

Glory be and hallelujah. I have seen the light, and lord it was good. Cars going fast can actually be cool. Testify!


And so I've been reading up on strategy in Formula One as well as in NASCAR. In fact, I'm starting to get the subtleties, the pit window manipulation and brake conservation and aerodynamics. There is a great deal more drama in motorsports that initially meets the eye.

It was with this newfound perspective that I watched the last 50 miles of the NASCAR race at Bristol this past weekend. Unsurprisingly, it was really great racing, lots of passing, lots of side-by-side who's-going-to-blink-first rubbin-is-racin goodness. But there were very few crashes.

On Monday, I read a review of the race. An excerpt:
"'What you're saying is that if there's not a lot of wrecking then it's boring?' [driver Jeff Burton] said.
Well, yeah!"

I suppose I'd also need explosions and spin-outs to keep me entertained if I feared minorities and Northerners and change. If I was the sort of guy who looked at my sister and thought "hmm... how bad could a web-footed child be?" You sir, Mr. David Newton of ESPN.com, are why I still don't consider myself a fan of NASCAR.