3 ms·

In NASCAR, they have another way of putting it: Save your equipment. Just because you can go as fast as you can leaving a pit stop, doesn't mean you should. You

In NASCAR, they have another way of putting it: Save your equipment. Just because you can go as fast as you can leaving a pit stop, doesn't mean you should. You'll prematurely wear your tires. If you're constantly running at the edge of control, you're more likely to make a mistake and make contact with another car or the wall. Reign it in a bit. Run near the edge of control, but not on it, and you save your equipment, won't need to pit as often and are generally better positioned for the frantic end of the race for the win. In the context of the article, and visiting a museum...there's no value to speed running a museum. All it does is allow you to say you were there. You've taken no time to examine any exhibit in detail, and you're unlikely to retain anything at all, or only the most superficial of details. For a good trip to a museum, you should only plan on seeing a single, or maybe two exhibits during your visit. Take your time to examine the artifacts. Read the blurbs. Take it all in. Rushing through it just to say you've been there is just a disservice to yourself, and a waste of museum resources. One of the last times I'd been to the Field Museum in Chicago, I took my mother (who was visiting from out of town) to see the temporary Egyptian exhibit. I had been there a few weeks earlier at a private exhibition and had already spent a fair amount of time looking at it. When I went through with my Mom during the public exhibition, we saw at least 6 distinct groups go through while we were still taking our time going through (they let people in at something like 30 people at a time in timed intervals). Most of the crowd was mothers with teens & preteens that mostly and literally ran through the exhibit. What's the point of that?

grok2 10y ago
The point in that is two-fold -- to gradually get people interested in "art" -- most teens/pre-teens aren't really interested in art/historical-artifacts. The 2nd is to get money for the museum via admission tickets :-). In time, some subset of those teens/pre-teens will be interested in a more leisurely stroll through the museum.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
Sorry, NASCAR is not racing, it's driving left on an oval "freeway" on cars with horrible real driving performance because, among other things, they can't turn right to save their lives. But, hey, it satisfies the need to make money by stuffing a bunch of people into a stadium to watch a "race" while they each chips, corn dogs and gulp soda. Easy to broadcast too. Announcers don't need to know a thing. Yes, I am bigoted about this. I think racing is about road courses, either on or off road. Let's see a NASCAR "race car" do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEv_uFBnzwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEv_uFBnzwI
- dwe3000 10y ago
  Is a quarter mile foot or horse race not a race just because it only turns left? I think not. NASCAR cars are tuned to their environment for maximum performance/speed, like difference in tire pressure for outside and inside tires. I have no doubt that if the tracks were different, the vehicles would be tuned differently.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    My comment has nothing to do with other forms of racing. You missed the part where I admitted to being a bigot about NASCAR. :) I also don't like that twirling ribbon event at the Olympics. Let a guy be grumpy for a moment, will ya? :)
- hermitdev 10y ago
  Yes, NASCAR is racing. Not every course is a road course, but they do run 2 per year. Not all courses are true ovals. None of the tracks have the same distance & banking. It's not as simple as you state: they just turn left. Racing on an "oval" is certainly a different discipline and takes different technology than say Indy or F1. Would you likewise argue that only a marathon is a foot race because they don't run in an oval? That the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 5000m steeplechase, 15000m steeplechase are all not races because they're either only run in a straight line or on an oval track? I doubt so. You have a preference for F1, and that's fine. I also prefer racing that isn't largely determined by pole positioning. How many F1 courses actually allow for passing? Not many. Certainly not Monaco, the premiere race. NASCAR's premier race, Daytona, sees a lot of passing. Subjectively, F1 has less competitive racing, albeit maybe more exciting. NASCAR has more competitive racing, but maybe not in a style you appreciate. To each, their own. Also, comparing an unregulated Porsche to a NASCAR car is disingenuous. NASCAR has strict regulations regarding engine displacement & aerodynamics to level the playing field and for safety (they were tired of killing drivers). At Daytona, you rarely see a car hit 200 mph these days when they used to hit up to 240 mph. It's not a technological decision. It's been a conscious safety decision.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago

grok2 10y ago

The point in that is two-fold -- to gradually get people interested in "art" -- most teens/pre-teens aren't really interested in art/historical-artifacts. The 2nd is to get money for the museum via admission tickets :-). In time, some subset of those teens/pre-teens will be interested in a more leisurely stroll through the museum.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

Sorry, NASCAR is not racing, it's driving left on an oval "freeway" on cars with horrible real driving performance because, among other things, they can't turn right to save their lives. But, hey, it satisfies the need to make money by stuffing a bunch of people into a stadium to watch a "race" while they each chips, corn dogs and gulp soda. Easy to broadcast too. Announcers don't need to know a thing. Yes, I am bigoted about this. I think racing is about road courses, either on or off road. Let's see a NASCAR "race car" do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEv_uFBnzwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEv_uFBnzwI

dwe3000 10y ago
Is a quarter mile foot or horse race not a race just because it only turns left? I think not. NASCAR cars are tuned to their environment for maximum performance/speed, like difference in tire pressure for outside and inside tires. I have no doubt that if the tracks were different, the vehicles would be tuned differently.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  My comment has nothing to do with other forms of racing. You missed the part where I admitted to being a bigot about NASCAR. :) I also don't like that twirling ribbon event at the Olympics. Let a guy be grumpy for a moment, will ya? :)
hermitdev 10y ago
Yes, NASCAR is racing. Not every course is a road course, but they do run 2 per year. Not all courses are true ovals. None of the tracks have the same distance & banking. It's not as simple as you state: they just turn left. Racing on an "oval" is certainly a different discipline and takes different technology than say Indy or F1. Would you likewise argue that only a marathon is a foot race because they don't run in an oval? That the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 5000m steeplechase, 15000m steeplechase are all not races because they're either only run in a straight line or on an oval track? I doubt so. You have a preference for F1, and that's fine. I also prefer racing that isn't largely determined by pole positioning. How many F1 courses actually allow for passing? Not many. Certainly not Monaco, the premiere race. NASCAR's premier race, Daytona, sees a lot of passing. Subjectively, F1 has less competitive racing, albeit maybe more exciting. NASCAR has more competitive racing, but maybe not in a style you appreciate. To each, their own. Also, comparing an unregulated Porsche to a NASCAR car is disingenuous. NASCAR has strict regulations regarding engine displacement & aerodynamics to level the playing field and for safety (they were tired of killing drivers). At Daytona, you rarely see a car hit 200 mph these days when they used to hit up to 240 mph. It's not a technological decision. It's been a conscious safety decision.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago