That's the epitome of crew (competitive rowing). You get 8 people in a boat shifting their inertia at various speeds, you have a chaotic center of gravity. Slow, smooth, synchronous strokes, where everyone is paying attention to each other, go shockingly faster than 8 people putting all of their strength into it.
I've always heard that adage in reference to performance/race driving or playing a musical instrument, never the military. Makes sense that it has wide ranging application though.
It is a fine line in race car driving. The very very fastest are usually not entirely smooth. Almost smooth. But even too smooth is much better than out of control. This may be a general truth.
In NASCAR, they have another way of putting it: Save your equipment. Just because you can go as fast as you can leaving a pit stop, doesn't mean you should. You'll prematurely wear your tires. If you're constantly running at the edge of control, you're more likely to make a mistake and make contact with another car or the wall. Reign it in a bit. Run near the edge of control, but not on it, and you save your equipment, won't need to pit as often and are generally better positioned for the frantic end of the race for the win.
In the context of the article, and visiting a museum...there's no value to speed running a museum. All it does is allow you to say you were there. You've taken no time to examine any exhibit in detail, and you're unlikely to retain anything at all, or only the most superficial of details. For a good trip to a museum, you should only plan on seeing a single, or maybe two exhibits during your visit. Take your time to examine the artifacts. Read the blurbs. Take it all in. Rushing through it just to say you've been there is just a disservice to yourself, and a waste of museum resources.
One of the last times I'd been to the Field Museum in Chicago, I took my mother (who was visiting from out of town) to see the temporary Egyptian exhibit. I had been there a few weeks earlier at a private exhibition and had already spent a fair amount of time looking at it. When I went through with my Mom during the public exhibition, we saw at least 6 distinct groups go through while we were still taking our time going through (they let people in at something like 30 people at a time in timed intervals). Most of the crowd was mothers with teens & preteens that mostly and literally ran through the exhibit. What's the point of that?
The point in that is two-fold -- to gradually get people interested in "art" -- most teens/pre-teens aren't really interested in art/historical-artifacts. The 2nd is to get money for the museum via admission tickets :-). In time, some subset of those teens/pre-teens will be interested in a more leisurely stroll through the museum.
Sorry, NASCAR is not racing, it's driving left on an oval "freeway" on cars with horrible real driving performance because, among other things, they can't turn right to save their lives.
But, hey, it satisfies the need to make money by stuffing a bunch of people into a stadium to watch a "race" while they each chips, corn dogs and gulp soda. Easy to broadcast too. Announcers don't need to know a thing.
Yes, I am bigoted about this. I think racing is about road courses, either on or off road.
Not every course is a road course, but they do run 2 per year. Not all courses are true ovals. None of the tracks have the same distance & banking. It's not as simple as you state: they just turn left.
Racing on an "oval" is certainly a different discipline and takes different technology than say Indy or F1.
Would you likewise argue that only a marathon is a foot race because they don't run in an oval? That the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 5000m steeplechase, 15000m steeplechase are all not races because they're either only run in a straight line or on an oval track?
I doubt so. You have a preference for F1, and that's fine. I also prefer racing that isn't largely determined by pole positioning. How many F1 courses actually allow for passing? Not many. Certainly not Monaco, the premiere race. NASCAR's premier race, Daytona, sees a lot of passing. Subjectively, F1 has less competitive racing, albeit maybe more exciting. NASCAR has more competitive racing, but maybe not in a style you appreciate.
To each, their own.
Also, comparing an unregulated Porsche to a NASCAR car is disingenuous. NASCAR has strict regulations regarding engine displacement & aerodynamics to level the playing field and for safety (they were tired of killing drivers). At Daytona, you rarely see a car hit 200 mph these days when they used to hit up to 240 mph. It's not a technological decision. It's been a conscious safety decision.
F1 is just one type of what is know as "road course" racing in the US. There are plenty of other categories, including off road.
Having driven Nurburgring as well as having spent days training at well known US race courses I can tell you that turning left all day feels just like being on a busy freeway. Take away the crashes and nobody would care.
A road course requires skills not found in the "let's all turn left for 200 laps" courses. Not even close.
The other aspect of road courses is that they require a very different level of concentration and physical endurance. Hard to understand this without spending a few hours driving a race car on a road course.
OK. Yes, I know NASCAR goes to road courses a couple of times a year. Yet, NASCAR, for the most part, is oval-turn-left racing.
Is a quarter mile foot or horse race not a race just because it only turns left? I think not.
NASCAR cars are tuned to their environment for maximum performance/speed, like difference in tire pressure for outside and inside tires. I have no doubt that if the tracks were different, the vehicles would be tuned differently.
The full quote as I first heard it was "slow is smooth, smooth is fast, speed is in the efficiency of motion". Basically speed tempered by the need for precision.
It should. The reframing the context of what "slow" means is part of what makes you consider the adage on a level deeper than the surface, looking for a way to resolve the apparent paradox.
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.