F1technical.net

Posted: **30 Mar 2011, 21:20**

Juan Pablo Montoya says it would be good news for the sport if his former McLaren teammate Kimi Raikkonen moves to NASCAR.

Former Formula 1 World Champion Raikkonen said yesterday he will follow Montoya's footsteps in moving to America later this year. The former Ferrari driver would start his NASCAR foray with races in the Camping World Truck Series.

Raikkonen's manager Steve Robertson confirmed the move on Wednesday: "Kimi will drive in selected races in the NASCAR series," he said.

Montoya, his teammate at McLaren during 26 Formula 1 grands prix, would welcome the prospect of having him race in NASCAR.

"Well, people talk a lot and I've heard the story already before, but if he's definitely coming it would be really good for him and for the sport," Montoya told AUTOSPORT. "He would be very welcome here."

Montoya was Raikkonen's teammate at McLaren starting in 2005, winning 10 out of the season's 19 grands prix between them. Then, in 2006, the two raced together again until the U.S. Grand Prix at Indianapolis, right before the Colombian announced a deal to race in NASCAR's top series for Chip Ganassi in 2007.

Montoya's early departure from Formula 1 following his NASCAR announcement anticipated his stock car debut to the fall of 2006. He entered six races at lower-level stock car series before making his Sprint Cup debut in the 2006 season finale at Homestead.

Raikkonen would be the sixth former F1 driver to attempt a move to NASCAR since Montoya announced his deal in the summer of 2006. Jacques Villeneuve, the 1997 Formula 1 champion and 1995 Indy 500 and CART champ, has competed in 15 NASCAR events between 2007 and 2010 but a full-time drive never materialized for the French-Canadian.

Posted: **30 Mar 2011, 23:56**

bhallg2k wrote:Or maybe Kimi wants it this way. Who knows?

Or maybe it's the only way Gillet can get his money? This whole thing can make B.A.R. seem like a brilliant idea.

Posted: **31 Mar 2011, 03:27**

ecapox wrote:The man just wants to have fun and drive. You cant blame him for that.

Ted68 wrote:Yes, Kimi is a driver looking to drive.

This.

I think we need to take Kimi's racing ventures at their purest value. His passion is in driving & racing. He's earned the $$$ to now have the luxury to do whatever he wishes without the hassles of team contract negotiations.

The rest of his career will see him funding his own drives, entering whatever series tickles his fancy at the time. What a brilliant position to be in! #lifeisgood

With Kimi, i wouldn't delve into the meaning behind his moves any further than that.

Posted: **31 Mar 2011, 06:35**

I can just see it now, da Kimster, left arm out the window, chewing tobacco wad in mouth, spit can between knees, beer cooler beside him, Finnish country music blaring on radio in a Nascar race, raising H_LL, kicking redneck hillbilly butt, and crashing spectacularly!! And laughing the whole time!

A Nascar race = Left, Left, Left, Left, finish line - YeHoo!, Yahoo! [...]

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 16:53**

Kimi signs deal with Kyle Busch Motorsports for a limited truck schedule. Looks like first race in May at Charlotte.

He is getting into a winning truck, so it should be interesting to see what happens.

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 17:04**

That's a race I won't miss.

True racers do not drink and drive, TauToadmiester.

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 17:36**

TauToadmiester wrote:A Nascar race = Left, Left, Left, Left, finish line - YeHoo!, Yahoo! [...]

A NASCAR race: Turn, straight, turn, straight, turn, straight, turn, straight.... finish.

A F1 race: Turn, straight, turn, straight, turn, straight, turn straight.... finish.

Only fundamental difference is that NASCAR races have lead changes and passing, without gimmicks ("lucky dog" aside).

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 18:15**

A NASCAR turn = two turns of identical constant radius and camber taken at identical speed

A F1 turn = each turn is different and has variable radius, camber, profile, and sight lines.

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 18:30**

Not constant radius, nor constant banking (camber). The fact that some tracks have more banking the higher up on the track you go also makes it a bit unique in finding the fastest line. Hell for that matter you'd be surprised the seemingly subtle but big differences there are between corners.

Believe me, it's not trivial and can be very technical. There's a reason open wheel and road racers have struggled on stock car ovals.. with some exceptions.

It's funny. I used to be a huge F1 fan and thought NASCAR was a joke... from a level of car development, driver skills, quality of racing... just not the case.

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 19:55**

This is what Montoya might be thinking about Kimi's decision:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-zEnO_KwDg[/youtube]

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 20:10**

richard_leeds wrote:A NASCAR turn = two turns of identical constant radius and camber taken at identical speed

A F1 turn = each turn is different and has variable radius, camber, profile, and sight lines.

Yeah, but the NASCAR turn you make in the middle of a pack of "Doberman pinschers, with a hand grenade in their mouths" where "the winner ain’t the one with the fastest car, it’s the one who refuses to lose". Big difference.

NASCAR is like impressionism or cubism, it's like the love of a cat: either you get it or you don't.

I keep repeating the same thing to "true NASCAR fans" who refuse to understand how marvelous F1 is... and they don't talk about rednecks but about snobs.

Race racism, if you ask me...

Besides, dear Richard, I'm writing this to correct a small imprecision. I visited Daytona briefly during paving. Marvelous work.

I can tell you that the sideslope varies into the curve, something that doesn't happen in any F1 circuit I know. Actually, I love the complexity that exists in the simplicity of civil engineering. Only colleagues notice, let's hope Kimi also does. I made another demotivational, just for you.

A finisher plus two extensions, each with its own operator. Only in NASCAR circuits, where sideslope varies in any section of any curve.

If you look hard you notice the "chaflanes" (I have no idea of the english word for that), that is, red markings on the pavement that indicate to each operator how high or how low the finisher "table" (again, I don't know the english word) has to be raised or lowered. You can notice there are two sets of markings for each of the extension operators.

At the old circuit of Brooklands (oldest racing circuit in Europe, if I'm not mistaken) they used the same design.

Curves inside curves. Beautiful. The outer car run on a larger sideslope, so it has a slightly improved chance to overtake. No rear wing aerodynamic gadgets!

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 22:06**

Thats what I associate with Nascar.
You see fat Monty and cool Kimi is already there:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcqOocW-9RQ[/youtube]

Well when I check some more videos I realize its not even that far from reality:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PREnonC- ... re=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMCmiTnF ... re=related[/youtube]

However I prefer drivers solving their issues like that instead of whining to FIA and the media.

Posted: **02 Apr 2011, 22:41**

So we should call them obround toroidal sections or swept arcs & not ovals.

Imagine the unexplored possibilities of banked circuits.

Actually do any "oval" tracks turn in on themselves like in the above? That would be sublime.

Posted: **03 Apr 2011, 00:47**

Ciro, the term you are looking for is "Progressive angle Banking" where the higher up the banking you get, the steeper the angle of the banking.

Posted: **03 Apr 2011, 20:45**

Ciro Pabón wrote:

NASCAR is like impressionism or cubism, it's like the love of a cat: either you get it or you don't.

Initially i struggled with this, but you may be onto something. I feel cubism is closer to F1, you can be drawn to it without knowing much about them, they're aesthetically pleasing right away, for the most part at least. Then you learn a bit more about them and they become even more interesting
Impressionism and NASCAR seem very simple ( some would say boring ) on the surface, so you can't go into them with total ignorance, you have to have a more developed palate i would say; it's easy for the common folk to say 'i get it, it's obvious and boring', but once you delve into the inner workings of it you may find them fascinating. By that point you'll know F1 can't be better than nascar or the other way around, they're just very interesting variations of a similar subject and it may depend on your mood which one you prefer on a given day

Ciro Pabón wrote:
Race racism, if you ask me...

Yeah, hate what you don't know

F1technical.net

Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!! A finnish REDNECK is created! :)

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!! A finnish REDNECK is created! :)

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!! A finnish REDNECK is created! :)

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!! A finnish REDNECK is created! :)

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!!

Re: Raikkonen to NASCAR!!! A finnish REDNECK is created! :)