 | |
Re: Trulli to test for Nascar
Nascar NASCAR and other professional stock car racing (rec.autos.sport.nascar)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Trulli to test for Nascar -
10-11-2009
, 07:57 PM
|
"Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:4ad01f65 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org: build wrote: http://forbes.com/2008/06/11/top-earning-nascar-biz-cz_ps_0611topearningd rivers.html The top 10 average 20 million, the next 25 might average 7 million at a guess.. which calcs out to somewhere around 10 mill average earnings per driver. Any idea what the F1 average might be? I'm guessing less. (yeah I know, lots of those guesses there) Actually it's probably a bit low at the moment because of Hamilton still (?) being under his initial contract and Massa not having won a WDC etc. I would say Kimi is *possibly* the highest paid right now. Damn I'm good - did a google search of "Kimi raikonen salary" and wiki came up with *just* that: $51 million in 2007. Far more than any numbers you mentioned from NASCAR. 15-20M was fairly common bottom limit when Villeneuve was still in F1. Alonzo was making $39M in 2007 for Mclaren BTW. |
and the lower 10, which would drag the average down.
You could be right though, it only takes a few at 40 or 50 million to push
it right back up
--
Chad
#72
| |||
| |||
|
|
G'day, I suspect those figures are actually 'drivers earnings' rather than 'salary' or 'team payment'. You suspect wrong. Alonso's and Kimi's figures are contract figures. It's what the driver would earn as part of their contract with the team. And I remember being amazed when I heard that Ferrari were paying MS £1M per race. LH, I believe, is on £15Mpa from McLaren as part of a 5 year contract. -- Alan LeHun |
Not disputing what you are saying. Could you post a link to where you
saw those figures for Alonso and Kimi published please?
Thanks in anticipation,
build
#73
| |||
| |||
|
|
Alonzo was making $39M in 2007 for Mclaren BTW. |
but you have found a quote in dollars when I suspect he wouldn't have
been paid (directly) in dollars but in pounds.
For example, Lewis Hamilton signed a £70M contract for five years in
1998:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3213065.ece
The same article notes Raikkonen's deal as being estimated as £25M pa
over three years. Also note that this is a minimum which (ignoring
endorsements and other contract) can be enhanced with various bonuses.
Back to that dollar/pound thing. Here's the exchange rate history:
http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph3.htm
So, that (average) £14M (actually, it was supposed to start at 10 and
rise) would have been worth $28M+ the year before or (for some of the
year) $14M the year after.
In 2007 (and dependent on when the article was written), that $39m
could be as low as £18.5M or as high as £20.5M.
Of course, this is slightly splitting hairs, but you have to be careful
when looking at historic values over such a volatile period that you are
comparing like with like.
#74
| |||
| |||
|
|
G'day Alan, Not disputing what you are saying. |
seldom officially released. Almost as difficult as it is to
accept them.
Ferrari have always given hints about their contracts with
their drivers and those figures could be deemed to be fairly
accurate.
McLaren were of a like mind but they seem to have shut up shop
with regards to LH's contract so that might be a little of the
mark.
I have no idea on the reliability of Fred's contract estimate
but I don't think it can be far off.
Quote:
|
Could you post a link to where you saw those figures for Alonso and Kimi published please? |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contracts
and followed the references.
Quote:
|
Thanks in anticipation, build |
--
Alan LeHun
#75
| |||
| |||
|
|
In rec.autos.sport.f1 APLer <APLer (AT) floor (DOT) tilde> wrote: Alonzo was making $39M in 2007 for Mclaren BTW. Bear in mind that in 2007, Alonso was not only reigning world champion, but you have found a quote in dollars when I suspect he wouldn't have been paid (directly) in dollars but in pounds. Probably because wiki is at least US oriented and/or the contributor was |
of a difference to drop it to the NASCAR type numbers in any case. Besides,
neither of use have any way of knowing how the original conversion was done
in the first place - Meaning when and using what rates.
The person who raised the issue was a NASCAR fan, the numbers I found were
in US dollars, so I saw absolutely no reason to change it to another
currency - which would have been probably Euros anyways I had bothered.
#76
| |||
| |||
|
|
Mark <spam (AT) not (DOT) welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote in news:hauqdo$389$1 (AT) north (DOT) jnrs.ja.net: In rec.autos.sport.f1 APLer <APLer (AT) floor (DOT) tilde> wrote: Alonzo was making $39M in 2007 for Mclaren BTW. Bear in mind that in 2007, Alonso was not only reigning world champion, but you have found a quote in dollars when I suspect he wouldn't have been paid (directly) in dollars but in pounds. Probably because wiki is at least US oriented and/or the contributor was from there. As for currency fluctuations and such, it wouldn't make enough of a difference to drop it to the NASCAR type numbers in any case. Besides, neither of use have any way of knowing how the original conversion was done in the first place - Meaning when and using what rates. The person who raised the issue was a NASCAR fan, the numbers I found were in US dollars, so I saw absolutely no reason to change it to another currency - which would have been probably Euros anyways I had bothered. |
people that some of these numbers aren't quite what they seem unless you
are sure in which currency they were negotiated and at which rate they
were converted.
#77
| |||
| |||
|
|
"armpit" <armarmpitpit (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:erKdnYqXc9KLr0zXnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com: "APLer" <APLer (AT) floor (DOT) tilde> wrote in message news:Xns9CA0B4747A6D8APLer (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1... "armpit" <armarmpitpit (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:sqednSuNbI68V03XnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com: More concentration? Your opinion. How much concentration do you need when you can run your best line *every single lap*? When you have about two seconds between apexes going opposite directions with different entry curves and *more* substantially more than two turns to remember along with having to shift up and down as many as 4 gears each way and brake? plenty. Do they even *know* what a clutch pedal is in NASCAR? There's a lot more to it that just running laps. Nascar guys are in traffic virtually all the time, unlike the F-1 guys who often can't even see the cars in front of or behins them. That just makes it slower. The concentration in Nascar is needed for racing against other cars, not just for running laps uncontested. Who exactly are you racing if you're blocked by a pack of cars? Nascar guys can't just run off in the grass when they make a mistake. Sure they can - they do it all the time. You do that in an F1 car and you're heading for the garage with a busted car - *if* you manage to still have it able to continue moving. It's called ride height. Look it up. Greater physical strength? How do you come up with that? I bet you think Nascar drivers don't train, don't you? And how many g forces do you think they pull in a corner? *no* road car pulls more than 2 g's - and that covers GT1 and NASCAR as well. F1 cars routinely pull 5 gs every lap. That's more than enough to cause blackout. Total g's is over 3 at some tracks. Lateral g's?. Doubtful. Even GT1 cars can't pull that much - they have wider tires - slicks, less weight and higher power. |
"Elite drivers will put up with 4 to 5 G's sustained in a corner for between
five and 15 seconds, maybe even 20," says physicist Brian Beckman, a
software architect with Microsoft in Redmond, Wash., and an amateur sports
car racer. Since 1990 he has authored a series of articles on the physics of
racing.
In NASCAR, as opposed to the open-wheel cars of the Indy 500, Beckman says
drivers experience 2-3 G's on turns. "Those (stock) cars, while they have
aerodynamics, don't have quite the cornering capability of an open-wheel
car."
But he says NASCAR drivers face another test: heat: "The insides of those
race cars are well over 120 degrees, and they are encased inside five-layer,
fireproof suits. It's not so hot in an Indy car, mostly because the engine
is behind and they're open and they're small."
http://usatoday.com/sports/2003-02-27-ten-hardest-race-car_x.htm
Quote:
|
I cannot find any reliable scientific data that is more exact. So it's a guess. I'd like to see a little more proof of your numbers if you can provide it. Any F1 broadcast - they have a HUD of it along with the onboard shots. Braking at 3.5-4 g's every turn as well. That would be negative g's although it's like sitting with your legs on a footstool, so the pooling effect on the blood might be substantially less than say a jet fighter where you're sitting straight up. Besides the math to calculate it is straightforward if you know the angular change per foot, length of the path and the time spent in the curve. That would be absolute proof for either. Those numbers could be very easily obtained by anyone - with either type of racing. As for banking, F1 ran at Indy - *and* they were going faster than the indy cars for top speed Wrong. And Indy is hardly banked. 9 degrees isn't much banking at all. Several of Nascar's tracks have banking approximately as steep as the old high-banked turn at Monza, and they run over 190mph on it. Not in the turns they don't. So it hardly matters. The F1 cars got quicker than that coming *out* of the turn after the infield at Indy. Meaning 3 and 4 on the oval. And don't forget that Nascar Cup cars have about 200 more horsepower than current F-1 cars. *Maybe*. The HP and torque ratings of F1 cars are hardly public record. Besides NASCAR cars weigh 4 times as much. Power to weight is what's important, As I've stated in this thread. They *have* been over 1,200 HP BTW - during the turbo era. That's roughly 1HP/pound. And they had\ standard transmissions for part of that. - without staying on the oval all lap. That kills NASCAR's banking by a mile. How about actually driving the car near other cars? You mean like 5' or less behind in the turbulance? happens with every car in every race several times. Otherwise it doesn't mean a thing. Going beside another car 2' away means nothing in aerodynamics. With all that downforce, no wonder it means nothing. Stock cars are big, low-downforce cars and aerodynamics are dramatically affected by the cars in front, behind an along side. No, those last two are irrelevant. The air's only *going* one way. The force sideways is minimal at best. Anyone who's waited for a train can tell you that - you can feel it but it's far from a 60 MPH gale. How about endurance? Some Nascar events are over 4 hours long, and the heat inside a stock car is much, much hotter that an open-cockpit car. Not when it's 40 degrees C *outside* with 80 percent humidity and you're 2" above a track 10 degrees C hotter. That's 104 and 122 Fahrenheit. Bullshit. All the engine heat is behind the driver. Nascar guys have to deal with that heat every race, for a longer period of time, not just when its oppressively hot. And where does F1 race where the temps are that high with that level of humidity? Malasia, Singapore, Brazil to name three. How about adjusting to tire wear & the changing conditions of the track due to rubber build-up & temperature change? Happens in *every* type of motor racing - motorcycles included. But it affects low-downforce cars far more, and the effect is multiplied due to the length of the race. Certainly not. The less total mass the greater the change. And how about dealing with frequent contact with other cars? Like bump-drafting? (I doubt an F-1 snob like yourself would know what that is.) Sure I know - the police call it assault with a weapon. Being a barbarian doesn't make you a good driver. Neither does driving a car for two hours by yourself. How difficult could that possibly be? Well that would cover NASCAR too wouldn't it? Not much of a point. And they *don't* just drive for two hours a day. And the concentration in F1 more than makes up for the time difference. Just *try* winning a F1 or even a sports car simulator *once*. I don't mean finishing BTW I mean winning a *full* race. Without experiencing such things you can't understand it. And then add in the effect you feel from g forces when driving a car - multiplied a few times. Including the effect it has on your neck and arms. I can appreciate that you don't care for Nascar, and that's fine. But don't belittle it by trying to make it out to be inferior to your precious F1 because it isn't. F1 is a parade, plain & simple. There's hardly any on track, driver vs. driver action at all. Qualifying is actually more intersting than the race. It could be so much more, but it isn't. Its BORING. The purpose of televised motorsports, from a fans POV, is to be entertained. All a matter of how long you watch, how much you know about it and how much you pay attention. Sure it's not "TV oriented" - which these days seems to be about creating interest for ADD people, but anything worthwhile requires effort. I'm sure you'd find soccer boring too, with the same explanation as to what you're missing. And don't get me started on all the silly politics and other off-track shenannigans that overshadow the sport. Ugh. No, that *is* the downside. I'm also not aware of anything illegal in such things in F1. What Max Mosely did was and is perfectly legal. Perhaps not in some US states, but I'm sure you've heard the phrase "banned in Boston". And in F1 we don't have drivers banned for substance abuse either. And there *are* mandatory drug tests. No one's ever found to be using. Unlike virtually any team sport you could name. Nor do we have the sponsorship fights you seem to constantly have with the drivers. Drivers know where their money comes from but don't have to do blatent plugs for it after the race. F1 doesn't sponsor cars or teams either. Companies pay teams for their name to be displayed during the race and occasional mention of the name period. This is *just* the race, qualifying and practices I'm talking about here. There are publicity junkets as well. |
--
Chad
#78
| |||
| |||
|
|
APLer wrote: Total g's is over 3 at some tracks. Lateral g's?. Doubtful. Even GT1 cars can't pull that much - they have wider tires - slicks, less weight and higher power. From 2003 but likely still relevant; "Elite drivers will put up with 4 to 5 G's sustained in a corner for between five and 15 seconds, maybe even 20," says physicist Brian Beckman, a software architect with Microsoft in Redmond, Wash., and an amateur sports car racer. Since 1990 he has authored a series of articles on the physics of racing. |
properly. An member of the SCCA is far from an expert in F1.
Quote:
|
In NASCAR, as opposed to the open-wheel cars of the Indy 500, Beckman says drivers experience 2-3 G's on turns. "Those (stock) cars, while they have aerodynamics, don't have quite the cornering capability of an open-wheel car." But he says NASCAR drivers face another test: heat: "The insides of those race cars are well over 120 degrees, and they are encased inside five-layer, fireproof suits. It's not so hot in an Indy car, mostly because the engine is behind and they're open and they're small." http://usatoday.com/sports/2003-02-27-ten-hardest-race-car_x.htm |
least "punished" of all three.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.