Fair enough, I didn't know about that track....but maybe that's because F1 hasn't raced there since 1961, so is it really a relevant argument?
You didn't know about monza? Sheesh.....kids these days.....
"Only" 194 mph? Sorry, that just made me giggle a little. I see your point about that number versus the 210, but I was just comparing overall lap records to overall lap records in an effort to be apples to apples as much as possible.
My point is this - it's not fair to say NASCAR should run in the rain because F1 does, or MOTOGP does, or whatever, because those sports have much lower average speeds.
Penadam argues that Indy cars have a much higher average speed on the oval at Indianapolis. Great, but
Indy cars don't run on the oval in the rain, so that argument either isn't relevant or supports NASCAR not running in the rain.
Frank says they just gotta slow down. Which they would, every vehicle races slower in the rain. F1, MOTOGP, etc all run, what, 10% slower in the rain? (I'm seriously asking because I'm too burned out to do the research). The point remains the same, if NASCAR cars ran 10% slower in the rain, they'd still have an average speed much higher than F1 cars do in the rain. Hell, at 10% slower their average speeds in the rain would still be higher than what F1 and MOTOGP do on dry pavement.....with walls closer than most any F1/MOTOGP track. Yup, those NASCAR guys must be pussies.