The only way we win is to outscore them

[Orangello]

 

[Ragman2000]

Cars don't win races, drivers do.

And Otto the Orange can drive one car while my dead Grandma drives the other in a hurricane while one car plays classical music and the other plays metal.

All of these points are completely irrelevant if you accept that speed is calculated as distance traveled divided by time. Assuming the same distance travelled, the car with the shortest time is BY DEFINITION the fastest car. Math.

 

[GoCuse14]

You are over-complicating this. The fastest car is the car that went the fastest over the entire course of the race. I get that some cars may be capable of going faster at various intervals of the race and may not win. But if you define it very simply as the time racing vs distance travelled, the car that wins has the fastest calculated speed. It is an absolute and if you make the same assumptions there are no exceptions.

Millhouse ...can you help save me here on this? I have a feeling you might have an opinion on this.

If all the cars start at the same, and travel the same distance...the car that finished first has traveled that distance at a faster pace. regardless of what has happened in the time between start and finish.

 

[Pyle]

And Otto the Orange can drive one car while my dead Grandma drives the other in a hurricane while one car plays classical music and the other plays metal.

All of these points are completely irrelevant if you accept that speed is calculated as distance traveled divided by time. Assuming the same distance travelled, the car with the shortest time is BY DEFINITION the fastest car. Math.

If all the cars start at the same, and travel the same distance...the car that finished first has traveled that distance at a faster pace. regardless of what has happened in the time between start and finish.

They dont all start at the same time nor do they travel the same distance. Nascar employs a rolling start. The race officially starts when the car in the pole position crosses the start line. At that point in time, the car in the pole position has to travel the exact race distance to reach the finish line. However, as this car crosses the line there are 39 other cars who are in fact starting from a point farther back based on their qualifying times. Therefore a car who starts 39th has to travel the race distance plus approximately 18 car lengths to finish the race. Let's assume for simplicity sake that the car who started in first, finished in first. Let's also assume it takes .5 seconds for the car in 39th to reach the start line after the race officially started but that driver finishes .05 seconds behind the leader to finish the race. The fact remains that the car in 39th finished the race closer to the leader than he started, therefore actually travelling further in the same amount of time. The faster car didn't win. Math.

It also bears repeating that drivers and their teams win races, not cars. A car is an object with finite, measurable characteristics. If a car has better acceleration and higher top-end speed then it is the fastest car regardless of all other outside influences. Whether a driver/team can win with the fastest car is a completely different argument. Logic.

 

[Ragman2000]

They dont all start at the same time nor do they travel the same distance. Nascar employs a rolling start. The race officially starts when the car in the pole position crosses the start line. At that point in time, the car in the pole position has to travel the exact race distance to reach the finish line. However, as this car crosses the line there are 39 other cars who are in fact starting from a point farther back based on their qualifying times. Therefore a car who starts 39th has to travel the race distance plus approximately 18 car lengths to finish the race. Let's assume for simplicity sake that the car who started in first, finished in first. Let's also assume it takes .5 seconds for the car in 39th to reach the start line after the race officially started but that driver finishes .05 seconds behind the leader to finish the race. The fact remains that the car in 39th finished the race closer to the leader than he started, therefore actually travelling further in the same amount of time. The faster car didn't win. Math.

It also bears repeating that drivers and their teams win races, not cars. A car is an object with finite, measurable characteristics. If a car has better acceleration and higher top-end speed then it is the fastest car regardless of all other outside influences. Whether a driver/team can win with the fastest car is a completely different argument. Logic.

Everything you said is true but it's like you're debating someone else completely because you are missing the point. I give up. No worries, have a good weekend and go Cuse.

 

[Pyle]

Everything you said is true but it's like you're debating someone else completely because you are missing the point. I give up. No worries, have a good weekend and go Cuse.

Not sure how I'm missing the point, somebody said the fastest car always wins, that's certainly not always true. That's all I'm saying, enjoy your weekend as well. Go Cuse!

P.S. I think this was some kind of coping mechanism for all of us. Rather than discussing the probable beat down tomorrow by the Tigers we are arguing Nascar...on a football forum...I think therapists call this deflection or avoidance or something. I need a beer.

 

[TheCusian]

I can say that with all the tangents I've started on any thread, this one is the one for which I am most sorry. And I tried to start one based on Newt Gingrich once.

 

[orange_in_VA]

While this team has seemed/been marginally better than last year overall. We are actually worse in scoring points so far this year. All of the yards kind of distract people from this fact. Also, having 4 wins with 4 games left looks more promising. The reality is our team is not very good at scoring which is the ultimate statistic for having a good offense.

Currently we are tied at #110 in the country with Boston College in Redzone Offense, #50 in 3rd down conversion percentage, and #81 in scoring offense. We need to turn yards into points to have any chance against elite teams like Clemson unless they totally lay an egg (Realistically I don't see that happening).

Surprisingly (Hard to tell by the eyeball test) it's our defense that has been keeping us in games.

Defense ranks #36 in the country for 3rd down defense and #9 in redzone defense. Pass efficiency defense is kind of middle of the pack at #62. The defense ranks pretty poorly in yards and points given up, but those are due to anomalies (Blowouts).

The offense has one anomaly game (Wake Forest). Disregarding that game gets us to 29.1 points per game. This would currently have us at the #72 scoring offense in the country. They've been consistently average/below average at scoring points.

In 3 games the defensive stats got "skewed". Louisville, South Florida and Notre Dame averaged 52.3 points per game on us. Notre Dame was a bad game by the defense. Louisville and South Florida score on everyone. However, in the other 5 games, the defense is only giving up on average 19.2 points per game.

We may win shootouts someday, but the stats tell me not to hold my breath that it will be this week (Or this season for that matter). If we hang around in this game, it will most likely be our defense that keeps us in it. We're still quite a ways away from being a good offense.

 

[TheCusian]

While this team has seemed/been marginally better than last year overall. We are actually worse in scoring points so far this year. All of the yards kind of distract people from this fact. Also, having 4 wins with 4 games left looks more promising. The reality is our team is not very good at scoring which is the ultimate statistic for having a good offense.

Currently we are tied at #110 in the country with Boston College in Redzone Offense, #50 in 3rd down conversion percentage, and #81 in scoring offense. We need to turn yards into points to have any chance against elite teams like Clemson unless they totally lay an egg (Realistically I don't see that happening).

Surprisingly (Hard to tell by the eyeball test) it's our defense that has been keeping us in games.

Defense ranks #36 in the country for 3rd down defense and #9 in redzone defense. Pass efficiency defense is kind of middle of the pack at #62. The defense ranks pretty poorly in yards and points given up, but those are due to anomalies (Blowouts).

The offense has one anomaly game (Wake Forest). Disregarding that game gets us to 29.1 points per game. This would currently have us at the #72 scoring offense in the country. They've been consistently average/below average at scoring points.

In 3 games the defensive stats got "skewed". Louisville, South Florida and Notre Dame averaged 52.3 points per game on us. Notre Dame was a bad game by the defense. Louisville and South Florida score on everyone. However, in the other 5 games, the defense is only giving up on average 19.2 points per game.

We may win shootouts someday, but the stats tell me not to hold my breath that it will be this week (Or this season for that matter). If we hang around in this game, it will most likely be our defense that keeps us in it. We're still quite a ways away from being a good offense.

Agree that we are underperforming relative to scoring vs yards gained.

Disagree that we are "a ways away" from being a good offense. We are more of an anomaly being a top 20 team by yardage with poor scoring than not. We're due. And relative strength of the defense we're up against hasn't shown up in our stats as much as it would in the past.

We have a chance. Slingshot and a rock.

 

[orange_in_VA]

Agree that we are underperforming relative to scoring vs yards gained.

Disagree that we are "a ways away" from being a good offense. We are more of an anomaly being a top 20 team by yardage with poor scoring than not. We're due. And relative strength of the defense we're up against hasn't shown up in our stats as much as it would in the past.

We have a chance. Slingshot and a rock.

There is always a chance. What I'm saying is the stats show we are unlikely to win a high-scoring, shootout type game.

 

[CuseOnly]

And as I said in a drag race, which is the same distance. The guy with the best reaction time can still win by being slower.

No he can't reaction time and speed are both figured into being "faster".

Hence the faster car always wins when all things are factored in.

 

[CuseOnly]

But the car that wins the race has done so in the fastest time, right? Hence, the fastest car.

Exactly.

 

[SUfaninAZ]

I said I'm out

 

[nzm136]

Exactly.

If you want to get technical, the answer is maybe. Speed is distance divided by time. A better driver could theoretically drive a slower-moving car and still win. All they would have to do is take tighter turns and finish ahead in a tight race. The difference in time could theoretically be offset by the difference in distance due to the fact that wider turns are longer than shorter ones.

***adjusts glasses***

 

[CuseOnly]

If you want to get technical, the answer is maybe. Speed is distance divided by time. A better driver could theoretically drive a slower-moving car and still win. All they would have to do is take tighter turns and finish ahead in a tight race. The difference in time could theoretically be offset by the difference in distance due to the fact that wider turns are longer than shorter ones.

***adjusts glasses***

Not true, by definition the faster car wins all things considered. Distance divided by time is correct, whichever car crosses the finish line first is the winner and the fastest car. If the slower car that travelled the shorter distance had crossed the finish line first, then that would be the fastest car for that race and hence the winner.

 

[blizz]

Two guys walk up to a pile of s*!#. One guy says "Hey man, that's s*!#". The other one disagrees, "No, it's not". First guy, "Yeah, I'm telling you, that is s*!#". Second guy is still not buying it, "Nah, I don't think so". First guy, "Alright then, let's taste it". Second guy, "Ok"...Second guy "Yeah man, you know, you're right, that's s*!# alright. Glad we didn't step in it"

 

[nzm136]

Not true, by definition the faster car wins all things considered. Distance divided by time is correct, whichever car crosses the finish line first is the winner and the fastest car. If the slower car that travelled the shorter distance had crossed the finish line first, then that would be the fastest car for that race and hence the winner.

...no. By definition, you're objectively wrong. The car that went the greatest of distance divided by the time was the fastest. That isn't necessarily the car that wins. It probably is, but not necessarily.