Over the last 2 weeks there have been a few aspects of two very different motor racing series - NASCAR and F1 - that makes it look like the two could learn a bit from each other, or at least look at each and feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Safety Cars

One of my favourite rants about F1 is how they appear confused by the safety car. Every other racing series in the world that has their version of safety car, pace car, whatever they call has worked it out how to sort itself out when the situation calls for it. Let me walk you through it at it's most basic level. An event happens - the safety car is scrambled - the pit lane is closed - the safety car picks up the leader - the field bunches up behind the safety car - pit lane opens - people pit - everyone is happy.

This works just fine everywhere - except Formula 1. They are obviously special. For them the idea of the pits closing seems mind boggling. They complain when they have to pit when the pits are closed. They complain when a safety car means that the person who was winning before the SC isn't leading after it. Why? Search me.

I don't know why they don't stick in a few laps more fuel on the tracks that are prone to SC intervention. People will #### on about how the extra weight will slow the cars down, but how much fuel will it actually take? Behind a safety car even massive F1 engines are frugal sippers from the gas cup, and besides the fractions of a second a couple of extra litres of fuel is undoubtedly less of a penalty than a drive through under green. Fans (I have posted an opinion very similar to this on a UK based website) seem to think that the fact that SCs tend to shake up the running order is bad. It's good! It's the only thing that makes the oft interminable durge of F1 worth watching. It would be less of a problem is a racing pass in Formula was as rare as a snowball in hell.

So from 2009 F1 will have a new rule for Safety Cars - when the SC is scrambled a light will come on the driver's steering wheel, with a button he then has to press to acknowledge the fact, before he slows down. The pits will still be open, so any lucky whatsit who happens to be going past the pit entrance when his light comes on can dive in to the pits while other have to do a lap driving at a speed pulled out of the air by the FIA. Moronic.

Tyres

So that's what F1 can learn from NASCAR, but what can NASCAR learn from F1. Tyres.

This NASCAR season, and the last few weeks especially have seen tyres come to the fore of NASCAR discussions, but F1 is not averse to it's own tyre woes - Indy 2005.

But what does this say?

Well, it knocks on the head the idea I've seen around that more than one tyre supplier will solve the problems. F1 had two suppliers in 2005 - Michelin and Bridgestone - and it still went Belly up then. Besides, the Hoosier tyres the ARCA cars ran at Talladega reportedly had problems as well, so perhap it wasn't purely Goodyear's stupidity. Plus in these days of corporate branding and huge contracts the position of the "Official Tyre of NASCAR" is probably too luractive for any company to agree to go halves with another company.

It also shows that more than one tyre company has been frankly idiotic with motor racing. Several writers - being bloggers, am-journos, or people who actaully get paid - seemed to addressing the tyre blowouts of Dega like it was the end of the world. Yes, we can do without them, especially at a place as borderline dangerous as Dega, but the race still went on. Yes after the (F1) Indy debacle it was discussed at length, and yes it still gets raised in conversations and articles, but it was not the end. What F1 did after was sensible in hindsight.

I only hope anything NASCAR does will be similar.