"King" George speaks

[Scotty G.]

They had 32 cars in 97...long cry from the 50 car plus fields and the drama of bubble day....

Mark, they had 36 cars at Indy in 1997. Which is more then they had in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

There hasn't been 50+ cars at Indy since the mid 80's. There were nowhere near that many in the early 90's. They were struggling just to get to 40, even with a lot of junk still being entered.

Indy 500 car counts were just fine in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. The "drama" of bump day was as good as it gets in 1999, 2000, 2001 and would have been in 2002 (had it not rained).

Then the IRL started to morph back into CART in 2003 and them days were over.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, they had 36 cars at Indy in 1997. Which is more then they had in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

There hasn't been 50+ cars at Indy since the mid 80's. There were nowhere near that many in the early 90's. They were struggling just to get to 40, even with a lot of junk still being entered.

Indy 500 car counts were just fine in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. The "drama" of bump day was as good as it gets in 1999, 2000, 2001 and would have been in 2002 (had it not rained).

Then the IRL started to morph back into CART in 2003 and them days were over.

oh yes...the IRL was so superior to CART in 1999 to 2002...so why did we have a merge then? IT was a MONEY LOSER THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING.

Again Scott, revise your history all you like, the point is if Tony was so dang right, he wouldn't be on the outs with the family and this sport isn't in the toilet. Results are what they are....

[Scotty G.]

1. Remind me again what team Paul and Geico will be running for?

2. Notice we didn't say a RACER needs an entire season. We said a TEAM does.

Gary

1. A ride-buyers team?

2. Bull. There were several teams that used to always show up at Indy and didn't give a damn about the rest of the CART season. Menards team, being the best of that group.

With the ancient spec crap we have now, get a good engineer and a few good crew guys and just about anyone could get up to speed in a hurry at Indy. Whether they run the 16 other warm up races or not.

[Mark in Oshawa]

1. A ride-buyers team?

2. Bull. There were several teams that used to always show up at Indy and didn't give a damn about the rest of the CART season. Menards team, being the best of that group.

With the ancient spec crap we have now, get a good engineer and a few good crew guys and just about anyone could get up to speed in a hurry at Indy. Whether they run the 16 other warm up races or not.

I will buy your argument that Menards could run the one race...but they were but one team, and Mr. Menard was on quest to use that Stock Block V6 to take advantage of the rules. Then Penske sort of blew a hole in the rule...lol..

That said, is that really a valid business model for running a race team? To Mr. Menard it was, but I am sure he would be the first to say he didn't make any money doing it....and would you find enough people like him to field 33 cars?

If the IRL dies, the 500 will continue, but it wont be the quality of field nor will the race be the same. Sorry, I am not buying how the 500 can just exist without a series. LeMans does operate on a simliar theory, but all the teams and owners use the same cars in a series that runs at LeMans. Just the ACO doesn't run it....but trust me, their fields are not as healthy if there is no LMS or ALMS for those teams to play in the rest of the year...

[Scotty G.]

oh yes...the IRL was so superior to CART in 1999 to 2002...so why did we have a merge then? IT was a MONEY LOSER THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING.

Who said anything about that bankrupt series you brought up?

The Indy 500 was and has never been about the IRL or CART or Champ Car or USAC.

And yes, in several ways (the racing being #1) the IRL was far, far superior to anything CART was dishing out in those years you mentioned. Its too bad the racing now is not even 1/10th as interesting.

And speaking of money losers and nobody watching, we have the Indy Car series of 2010 for everyone to enjoy!!

(The TV ratings say MANY more folks WERE watching back in those days then now. Plus, the series wasn't stuck on some 3rd tier network for most of the year. I am sure you knew that, right?).

[Mark in Oshawa]

Who said anything about that bankrupt series you brought up?

The Indy 500 was and has never been about the IRL or CART or Champ Car or USAC.

And yes, in several ways (the racing being #1) the IRL was far, far superior to anything CART was dishing out in those years you mentioned. Its too bad the racing now is not even 1/10th as interesting.

And speaking of money losers and nobody watching, we have the Indy Car series of 2010 for everyone to enjoy!!

(The TV ratings say MANY more folks WERE watching back in those days then now. Plus, the series wasn't stuck on some 3rd tier network for most of the year. I am sure you knew that, right?).

Oh yes....but What did the IRL do to lose those fans? Nothing....except people realized watching 20 cars running around Kansas with their foot the floor wasn't as exciting the 3rd or fourth time around as it was the first.

Fine...make it an all oval series....it worked SO well that Tony was adding road courses 3 years ago. It WASNT WORKING Scott.....

[SarahFan]

Fine...we now have you saying that....I didn't say it was dependent entirely, but the Indy 500 with no series to support the cars would suck..



Damn right I say it would suck. They had 32 cars in 97...long cry from the 50 car plus fields and the drama of bubble day....

You take away a supporting series for over 4 or 5 years, tell me how it would PAY to develop a modern race car to chase down the purse? Tell me how the fans would follow any of the drivers? All these teams would just magically appear every May and not have anything to sustain them the rest of the year?



It survived, it didn't thrive. It is this sort of argument that makes me wonder why we bother having the conversation. Survival wasn't what it was doing when this BS started.




IT would run..but it wouldn't be relevent. I would argue it isn't nearly as relvent now as it was 20 years ago.

You know what my point is....

but I at least will commend you publically for actually fleshing out your point ...we just will disagree...

my point was clear from the start....