10 Comments

1. Patrick  •  Apr 21, 2009 @3:46 pm
   

   Planet blowing up blah blah blah.

   If you haven’t been to Indy or Daytona (I’ve been to both), you have no business talking about racing from any standpoint other than a complete ban. An individual racing event blows through a lot of carbon in a day, but what of it? It’s nothing compared to the structural problems of air and automotive traffic in general.

   Agreed that it’s a stupid gesture, but complaining about auto racing because of its carbon emissions is like a Roman complaining about chariot racing because of its brutality.

   That’s the whole point, big engines and loud roars. The day America bans racing except by flimsy wheeled solar gizmos and bicycles will be the day the next revolution starts.

2. Charles  •  Apr 21, 2009 @4:01 pm
   

   Slow down, man! The caution light is on!

   My interest in this began an ended with “stupid gesture” and “Al Gore joke.” Please don’t confuse me with someone concerned about the environment. I’ll check in again later but right now I’ve got to go drown a polar bear.

3. Mark Stevens  •  Apr 21, 2009 @4:26 pm
   

   Actually, the cars used in NASCAR races are far more fuel efficient than anything being produced by any of the car makers. The cars used in the races burn with 100% efficiency. Let’s see Detroit build a car that can do that. Yeah, so they only get 8 miles per gallon, but what do you expect from 800 horsepower? Most pickup trucks don’t get much more than that at 1/4 of the horsepower. Perhaps we could learn something from Dale Jr.

4. Grandy  •  Apr 22, 2009 @3:57 am
   

   Charles, why waste a Polar Bear by drowning it? They’re so tasty. . .

5. Bob  •  Apr 22, 2009 @6:54 am
   

   On earth day, no less. Have you no shame?

6. Mark  •  Apr 22, 2009 @9:41 am
   

   @Mark Stevens — usually when non-geeks refer to “fuel efficiency” they mean fuel economy. I thought it was pretty clear from the context that’s what he was talking about here.

7. Mark Stevens  •  Apr 22, 2009 @9:56 am
   

   With respect, my point is that NASCAR engineers have been able to come up with a naturally aspirate engine (carburated) that is capable of burning 110 octane fuel with 100% efficiency. No fuel injected engine coming from any of the major car makers can even approach that standard. Fuel economy is a direct result of fuel burning efficiency. They are one in the same in this regard.

8. jack fate  •  Apr 22, 2009 @7:26 pm
   

   This couldn’t be less meaningful if the track were built to encircle Al Gore’s mansion.

   But then they’d have to call it the Coca-Cola 6000! HAR! HAR! *rimshot crach*

   Sorry, I couldn’t help it.

9. Charles  •  Apr 23, 2009 @12:16 am
   

   I have to come clean and give Mark Stevens his due. I was being glib when I called them BOTH fuel efficient and driven at inefficient speeds. I knew better than to think that the NASCAR engineers would give up the competitive advantage of making every drop of gas count.

10. Arcturus  •  Apr 24, 2009 @10:04 am
    

    “The cars used in the races burn with 100% efficiency. Let’s see Detroit build a car that can do that.”
    -Mark Stevens

    key phrase there: “cars. . . burn with 100% efficiency”.

    But seriously, no. Unless NASCAR gets an exemption from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then no, neither the cars nor the fuel burn with 100% efficiency.

Leave a Reply