Indycars will start turning right at Indy?

[garyshell]

Didn't you warn someone else in this thread to loose the patronizing tone? Your own snarky tone does not give me any incentive to spend 30+ minutes writing a well thought out response.

And didn't you also tell me not to put words in your mouth? So please show me where I said, "We can bring it back to its 1960's glory overnight." The prestige of the Indy 500 was damaged with over a decade worth of poor decision making. It's going to take at least a decade of good decision making to restore it.

The second sentence is really very easy, when you read it in context:

Snarky <> patronizing. I have never told anyone to loose the snarky tone, not once. Also, I never said that you thought that it could be brought back to the 1960's glory.

Seeing the two sentences about Audi in context, now I understand what you were saying.

Gary

[garyshell]

It's still an apples to bananas comparison. Daytona doesn't hold 2 major NASCAR races during the month of February.

If NASCAR ever made that recommendation...well we know that NASCAR values to prestige of the Daytona 500 and they would never make such a suggestion.

Honest question, has there been a suggestion to run the Indy road course in May? I thought the talk was of doing it at or near the end of the season. Running it in May would indeed take away from the 500.

Gary

[bugeyedgomer]

Yeah, the Daytona 500 had so much more prestige when it was the only the only race at the track.

Daytona has a strong series behind it. Indycar only has the one race.

[Rex Monaco]

Honest question, has there been a suggestion to run the Indy road course in May?

In the first paragraph of the second article I posted in this thread:
"Mark Miles swears he's not trying to trample on tradition by having two races next May, he simply wants to try and enhance the month."

From the second paragraph of the same article:
“I want to protect the Indianapolis 500 but we need to look at what we can do to help the race and IndyCar. We need make more out of the month and I don't see how starting off with a road race could hurt it.”

And so on:
"The race would likely fall on Saturday, May 10, to avoid tempting fate on Mother's Day and it's possible it could be a double-header with the new United SportsCar Racing series."

[bugeyedgomer]

Americans love ovals right? Why going to add another road course event...

St. Pete wants to be a double double

[Rex Monaco]

Please explain how this brings prestige back to the Indy 500? I just don't see the logic. Somehow not allowing a second race at the track makes the 500 more prestigious? Gee if that works, lets talk about having three more oval races there and then say no to them too and add even more instantaneous prestige. We can bring it back to its 1960's glory overnight. Brilliant!

Show me where I stated that NOT holding a road race would bring prestige back to the Indy 500? You can't, because I didn't. I said adding a road race would remove all the prestige that is left. Do you understand that distinction?

If not, then let me simplify it for you so you can understand. If the glass is half full then all you have to do to preserve whats left is not spill anymore of it. But the act of not spilling any further liquid does not add more liquid to the glass. It merely preserves the liquid you have left. Now do you understand?

The problem with the Indy 500 is that the megalomaniac poured out half of the water during his failed experiment. The trick for the new leadership is to not to spill anymore water, while figuring out how to add the lost water back into the glass.

The month of May became the month of May, not because a "Bill France", "P.T. Barnum" or "Clabber Girl" thought of a better way to put on a better show. It evolved into the month of May to accommodate the amount of entries that were drawn to the race because of the prestige of winning the event. That prestige brought teams, drivers and manufacturers from around the world who had a dream to win the Indy 500.

To me the series isn't important at all. The race (and successive series) have been sanctioned by AAA, then USAC, then CART, then the IRL and now Indycar. Indycar could die tomorrow with little to no negative effect at all, if a new series quickly took it's place as in the past.

So I don't place any value on saving this new sanctioning body from failure. There are plenty of other sanctioning bodies with much more experience and professionalism that could do the job.

What's of paramount importance to me is saving the remaining prestige of the Indy 500 and restoring that which has been squandered by poor decision making and short sightedness. But that requires some changes to the entrant rules for the Indy 500. And adding a road race during the month of May, is not the rule change that is required. That only shows that the leadership does not understand the problem.

[garyshell]

Bringing prestige back to the Indy 500 is enough of a reason to allow it. And like Audi at Le Mans it might lead to more participation in Indycar.

Please explain how this brings prestige back to the Indy 500?

Show me where I stated that NOT holding a road race would bring prestige back to the Indy 500? You can't, because I didn't. I said adding a road race would remove all the prestige that is left. Do you understand that distinction?

It was right there in the very first sentence of the post I replied to. Of course, I will readily admit I was assuming your original message was intended to have the word "not" in it since you've been against the idea from the onset.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

It was right there in the very first sentence of the post I replied to. Of course, I will readily admit I was assuming your original message was intended to have the word "not" in it since you've been against the idea from the onset.

Gary

Context, Gary, context.

My post purposely contained this quote, since it was the one that I was replying to:

There's no reason to run the 500 only!

And this was my reply:

Bringing prestige back to the Indy 500 is enough of a reason to allow it.

See how context adds clarity? Try reading my posts just as they are written including the quotes. Not that I don't make mistakes. But I do try to mean what I say and say what I mean.

[garyshell]

There's no reason to run the 500 only!

Bringing prestige back to the Indy 500 is enough of a reason to allow it.

See how context adds clarity.

Yep, with that context it is clear you did not say "NOT holding a road race would bring prestige back to the Indy 500". You said "Bringing prestige back to the Indy 500 is enough of a reason to allow it" [to be the only race at 16th and Georgetown]. Maybe to you there is some nuanced difference in those two statements. If there is it escapes me.

Gary

Note: Bracketed text added to quote for clarity per http://english.stackexchange.com/que...to-a-quotation

[Rex Monaco]

Maybe to you there is some nuanced difference in those two statements.

Back to context, I was replying to this statement (posted in it's entirety):

There's no reason to run the 500 only!

Audi always wins at Le Mans because they have the rest of the season to use as a test sessoin.

I might be wrong, but it seemed as if Andrew was speaking about the ability of a team to only run at the Indy 500, to which I responded (also posted here in it's entirety):

Bringing prestige back to the Indy 500 is enough of a reason to allow it. And like Audi at Le Mans it might lead to more participation in Indycar.

As you can see, it's not about nuance. It's about keeping up with the conversations that are taking place.