25 thoughts on “Bill Nye”

  1. Like a statist, Nye would prefer forcing NASCAR to change its ways instead of offering a different race based on his ideas.

    Competition is totally lost on these morons.

    1. I see this conversation as the mirror of the recent conversation here on peer review. I mocked Rand’s call to end peer reveiw for academic papers, suggesting that he was forcing journals to change their ways instead of either asking for a voluntary change. I hope you’re doing the same thing, but I don’t detect a hint of humor, so maybe you’re serious?

      In both cases, I think a voluntary change is unlikely, but setting up a competing arrangement based on different ideas is a good idea.

      1. I’m serious. And I find it bizarre how you will find these thin threads that vaguely connect two ideas.

        First, I’ve had nothing to do with that discussion. That is Rand. Second, Rand would probably never force the journals to change their ways, as Nye would eagerly do, if given the chance, to change NASCAR.

  2. Bill “I’m not a scientist but I play one on TV” Nye is incredibly clueless if he thinks NASCAR’s technology is “depressing.” There is bleeding edge state-of-the-art technology out there. Also, if he thinks of a boring hyper-miler when he thinks of NASA, he’s clearly never been anywhere within 10 miles of a launch site. NASA is all about raw power when it’s called for!

  3. I drive a Toyota Tundra pickup with extended cab, and a great big V-8 engine. The gas tank holds exactly 21 gallons. Where are these “average cars” that have 42 gallon tanks? Never heard of even one.

  4. A couple of years ago, Formula 1 did more or less what Nye proposes for NASCAR. Fuel allocation and flow rate is now strictly controlled. They’re currently using about 40% less fuel per race than five years ago, with 1.6 litre twin-turbo V6 hybrid motors.

    TV figures are down all over the world, the German Grand Prix has been cancelled because the circuit can’t make the numbers work, two teams have gone bankrupt, and several others are close to it. “Customer” power units are said to cost teams about $30m per season. Six or seven years ago, there was talk of a cost-cap on engine supply of $5m, which, while lower than the average at the time, was feasible for traditional 3l V8s; it’s simply impossible with these highly complex units. The latest news is that the FIA has started a tender process for cheap, 2.5l, non-hybrid, engines for 2017.

    1. I recall watching guys in Europe on TV engaged in a kind of competition known as a “tractor pull.”

      You had the usual rigs of multiple supercharged V-8 engines from drag-race cars bolted together into “unlimited class” tractors. But things really got interesting when the Danish teams brought out “tractors” powered by Former Soviet Union-surplus helicopter gas turbines.

      Who knew that you could flood the combustion chambers with so much fuel that dense, black smoke came pouring out the fat exhaust stacks? Who knew that tractor pulls were a big deal in Denmark?

      There’s hope yet for the European people . . .

    2. NASCAR uses about 8,000 gallons of petrol a race. How much did Bill Nye use when he hopped aboard Air Force One to tout global warming? Perhaps he can sit his butt down and the rest of us can enjoy a race.

  5. “What if NASCAR races were like those engineering competitions that not even the students’ parents attend?” — Bill Nye, the Asperger’s Guy

  6. The following quote says much;

    “Place a limit on how much fuel teams can use during a race. Nye suggests no more than 21 gallons — about half a tank for most modern cars.”

    Most modern cars have 42 gallon gas tanks? Wow, who knew?

  7. ” he is clueless about the purpose of NASCAR.”

    I’m more clueless than him. I’m asking in complete ignorance: could someone tell me, in just a sentence or two if you like, what is the purpose of nascar? I read the wikipedia entry on NASCAR before asking, but it didn’t really help. I thought it was “stock cars” but I guess they are not really stock?

    1. The purpose of NASCAR is the same as that of any motor sport: To move high-power machinery around a fixed course as fast as possible, while killing people only occasionally.

      1. But it is “as fast as possible” within the rules determining all sorts of things about the car. Otherwise “as fast as possible” would lead to cars that look pretty different from NASCAR cars.

        Are the rules are just arbitrary at this point, with only some connection to cars that are purchased by regular people? If so, then Nye’s fuel rule seems as sensible as any other arbitrary rule to me. With Nye’s rule, wouldn’t you still have the goal of going as fast as possible (within the rules) using high power machinary?

          1. It’s about fuel efficiency, too, although perhaps not to the extent of F1 or other “limited fuel” series. Many races this past season and last year were won or lost by a driver whose crew chief tried to stretch their fuel load too thin and had the car coast to a stop just before or shortly after the finish line.

            Fuel efficiency is just a small part of the overall strategy that is discussed throughout the event if you can bear listening to the announcers/color-commentators all race long.

    2. NASCAR is to stock-car racing as Hollywood is to your local thespian society.

      *Real* stock car racing or even super-modified if you like has its roots in the time honored southern tradition of moon-shine runners using customized high horsepower autos to outrun law enforcement when running unlicensed liquor to speak-easies and bars within and across state lines both before, during and after prohibition.

      *Real* stock car racing takes place on high bank dirt ovals.

      1. Speaking as a non-racing fan who is suddenly a bit curious about it, I think it would be more fun to see completely unmodified cars race around (maybe with safety equipment, but no performance upgrades.)

        1. In *real* stock car racing there is a class that is essentially just that. Usually requires a 5 point harness, a helmet, a fire extinguisher and a roll bar or roll cage and removal of all glass as the only allowed/required modifications. Racing w/o a roll bar may still be allowed in some states, but I wouldn’t recommend it. And you can forget about life-insurance if you participate in any of this…

        2. “I think it would be more fun to see completely unmodified cars race around (maybe with safety equipment, but no performance upgrades.)”

          There are many variations on ways to accomplish this goal of fun-seeking:

          SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) holds events with everything from bone-stock to super-modified.

          Autocross involves stock cars (with harness and/or roll cage requirements in some) racing around cone courses in large parking lots.

          There’s the always-entertaining “24 hours of Lemons” race, which only bears superficial resemblance to its namesake; teams have a “not more than $x,xxx” budget, and try to field a vehicle around the track for a 24 hour race.

          There are Mazda Miata, Mini Cooper, and other “Cup” series races that use a factory-spec’d car that is uniform amongst all participants, with the only difference being the driver and crew.

          SCCA is definitely the place to start if you have even a fledgling interest in low(er)-cost, amateur/semi-pro (because, honestly, the difference between a hobby and a career is somewhat fuzzy with some of these guys) racing.

    1. If they have electric car races, they will almost certainly be a separate class. Hard to imagine them having battery power to beat gas-powered cars in anything but sprints or drag races. At least any time soon. Energy density of gasoline is hard to beat.

      1. There are electric car races. Spooky, because all you hear are gear whine and tire squeal. Last electric car race I was at was in Arizona. It was sort of Formula 1 but with batteries. Watching the teams switch out batteries was almost more fun than the race.

Comments are closed.