Where to buy jet fuel?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by ass, Feb 17, 2007.

  1. I wouldn't think Avgas would be better than what they are running in
    NASCAR.
     
    Gordon McGrew, Feb 20, 2007
    #21
  2. ass

    jim beam Guest

    it is.
     
    jim beam, Feb 20, 2007
    #22
  3. ass

    jim beam Guest

    and it's still not "jet fuel".
     
    jim beam, Feb 20, 2007
    #23
  4. ass

    Matt Ion Guest

    Well, literally, it means "against the law"...
     
    Matt Ion, Feb 20, 2007
    #24
  5. I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
    want to?
     
    iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw, Feb 20, 2007
    #25
  6. ass

    Joe LaVigne Guest

    NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
    outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...

    Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
     
    Joe LaVigne, Feb 20, 2007
    #26
  7. I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
    Everyone would just start using jet fuel.
     
    iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw, Feb 20, 2007
    #27
  8. ass

    jim beam Guest

    that's dumb. name a single vehicle innovation or invention that's
    benefited normal cars that's come from nascar. f1 otoh, where cars are
    /not/ equal, is the #1 breeding ground for vehicle technology in the
    world today. it's ancient now, but the fuel injection technology honda
    sold with its mainstream vehicles in the late 80's was straight off the
    f1 race track. nascar's a joke.
     
    jim beam, Feb 20, 2007
    #28
  9. ass

    Mike Smith Guest

    Who says NASCAR has to run its races to suit *you*? NASCAR is a
    business, whose interest is putting butts in seats, not developing
    tomorrow's technology. And they're pretty damn good at it.
     
    Mike Smith, Feb 20, 2007
    #29
  10. ass

    Joe LaVigne Guest

    Where did I say that NASCAR innovated anything? They simply want to have
    the cars be as equal as possible on the track.

    Their goal is not (nor should it be) to do a damn thing for your car.
    Their job is to pack the track with fans, and get TV ratings. They
    accomplish both tasks.

    As for F1, they can innovate all they like. Their races are boring follow
    the leader festivals. The only interesting part is qualifying. Once that
    is set, there is almost never a serious race...

    For all of it's flaws, NASCAR is competitive on the track...
     
    Joe LaVigne, Feb 20, 2007
    #30
  11. ass

    jim beam Guest

    if you drive a honda, you'd be amazed how much of it is based on
    competition-derived technologies. if there's no scope for innovation
    and testing in competition, you get to drive crap. driven a chevy
    lately? they dominate nascar.
    yeah, with b.s. hype about "jet fuel". and have you checked f1 ratings?
    no one knows f1 here, but when i was in europe, it was /huge/.
    like a circle jerk?
     
    jim beam, Feb 21, 2007
    #31
  12. ass

    Mike Smith Guest

    Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
    from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
    things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
    States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
    overhead-cam engines!)
     
    Mike Smith, Feb 21, 2007
    #32
  13. ass

    Joe LaVigne Guest

    Again who gives a rat's ass? Nascar has no responsibility to create
    innovation for grocery-getters. Their job is to put asses in the seats.
    They do it.
    There was no "B.S. hype about jet fuel". A team was found to be using an
    illegal additive in the fuel. NASCAR never mentioned "jet fuel", nor
    would they.

    And I also don't care about Europe's TV ratings. You may have missed
    this, but F1's ratings suck in the US whenever they are on.
    You don't like it, that's fine. Some find a circle-track to be boring,
    and I am fine with that. But in NASCAR, there is passing, drafting, and
    the occasional wreck (more in a plate race). In F1, the finishes are
    almost always dependent on the qualifying position. There is hardly ever
    a photo-finish, and passing in a turn is almost unheard of. Not to
    mention that, for a spectator, it is dull as hell. You see a blur of cars
    pass, then wait a while before you see anything else.

    You watch what you like, and I'll watch what I like, but to dismiss
    NASCAR's popularity simply because they don't make your car better is just
    plain silly...
     
    Joe LaVigne, Feb 21, 2007
    #33
  14. ass

    jim beam Guest

    this is all about preferences. you're right, nascar has no obligation
    to do anything. it's a circus. and so is f1. but /my/ preference is
    to see an event that has multiple levels of interest. /i/ like to know
    about the vehicles and who has what. /i/ like to see technical
    advantage. dual overhead cams, electronic ignition, fuel injection,
    ventilated disk brakes, abs, shock absorbers, aerodynamics, synchromesh
    technology, lubricants, composites, safety systems, etc., etc., are
    /all/ beneficiaries of f1 competition over the years. what the
    europeans call rally driving is another major source. as for
    entertainment value, i don't think you've watched much of it. nascar is
    solid rear axles going "up aways and turn left". there's nothing
    entertaining in that.
     
    jim beam, Feb 21, 2007
    #34
  15. ass

    jim beam Guest

    forgot to mention - the "jet fuel" thing was per commentary on sports
    radio. i was in the car out of my local f.m. radio region for a good
    deal of that day, so had sports radio on a.m. on the dial. and all the
    pre-race talk and interviews were about "cheating" and the use of "jet
    fuel". they even had a phone interview with the driver concerned and he
    used the words "jet fuel" when discussing the alleged infraction. so,
    you and i know it's b.s. to use those words, but that was the way it was
    presented to the public. and because it was clearly incorrect, and was
    a term used by a professional driver who i think /most/ unlikely to be
    so ignorant, /that/ is why i say it was media stir-em-up, not reality.
    nothing like a little controversy to get a few more eyeballs on the screen.
     
    jim beam, Feb 21, 2007
    #35
  16. ass

    ACAR Guest

    http://www.imsaracing.net/ ??

    as for
    Sometimes they don't "turn left" when they should. Some consider the
    aftermath entertainment.
     
    ACAR, Feb 21, 2007
    #36
  17. "Professional" wrestling is popular in the US too, what does that say?
     
    Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay, Feb 21, 2007
    #37
  18. ass

    Mike Smith Guest

    That they know how to make money, too?

    Are you from some other country? Do you mean to tell me you don't have
    some ridiculous sport or pastime where you're from, that someone from
    another country would find positively silly?
     
    Mike Smith, Feb 21, 2007
    #38
  19. Let me put it this way, I don't see any Jenson Button stickers
    plastered on vehicles that are in trailer-parks or public housing.
     
    Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay, Feb 21, 2007
    #39
  20. I guess F1 makes greater demands on the car, the driver and the
    spectators. It isn't dull if you understand what is going on. The
    only way to pass in a turn (as opposed the going into a turn) is if
    the turn is so wide and forgiving that multiple lines can be driven
    with equal speed.

    I got free tickets to an oval track race a couple years ago and was
    amazed to see two cars drive side-by-side for three laps. It may be
    exciting as a horse race, but obviously it isn't very demanding of the
    participants.
     
    Gordon McGrew, Feb 22, 2007
    #40
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.