Danger and unpredictability

[NickFalzone]

Are these two of the main things that are missing in the current spec IndyCar series? I'm not a fan of wrecks, or certainly of drivers getting injured (or worse). But on the other end of it, I think that the danger and unpredictability of the cars in years past, particularly with the multiple manufacturers and engine types, was really what MADE Indy car racing. Sure, the drivers were also important, but I think this season we've got a very talented and exciting list of drivers, but the series is still mostly a bore to watch. I'm not referring to lack of passing as a problem with the product, but just a complete lack of variety in the cars. The D/H/F spec is nice, but part of OW racing to me is the excitement of the technology. For one thing, the DHF spec has some cool technology, but we never really see or hear much about it. And on the other hand, that technology is not being challenged or really even explained without the comparison of a unique competitor. I'd like to go to a race once in awhile where I think maybe that one makes engine is going to be super fast for half the distance, and explode in the last 20 laps. Or a chassis that handles extremely well on the corners but falls back in the pack on the straightaways. Something to spice it up. Right now, the IRL completely lacks that kind of excitement.

[V12]

I agree 100%. Technical variety and interest is treated these days like a luxury when it should be a necessity.

The British magazine Autosport ran a piece a few years ago that analysed how the proliferation of "spec" racing has had a detrimental effect on the on-track excitement and has resulted in the never ending series of gimmicky ideas to mix things up like reverse grids, success ballast, push to pass (sound familiar?), "option" tyres (sound familiar?).

In the "good old days" (which, lets face it, weren't that long ago), technical variety was what mixed things up. As you say, some chassis will suit certain circuits, corners, weather conditions, some engines may be fast but fragile or overweight, making them suited to a particular track. Same with tyres as well, in IndyCar/CART in 1996 Firestones were generally the thing to have, but when it rained at one of the street races (Detroit?), the Goodyear brigade ran away with it. F1's "tyre war" probably cost Michael Schumacher a few dominant victories in the early 00s on the days when Michelin were on song.

So, in their opinion (and mine) one bad thing has caused another bad thing, Insult to injury. It's basically like not only having your balls ripped off, but bleeding to death as a result.

[Chris R]

The unpredictability is very important - cars used to break more frequently, drivers could make more errors etc.. I am not sure the danger issue is so important as the unpredictability... However, it does need to be dangerous enough so the average fan feels they probably would not want to put their own life on the line doing it.....

[wedge]

In the era of cost cutting F1 has shown that you need a revised business/R&D model other than spec parts.

I'm all for competition and pushing the envelope but I'm not too keen on tyre wars. Far too many minuses than pluses - too many marbles detriment to racing in late 90s CART; MotoGP last year and F1 has shown that a performance differential between brands can produce dull races.

[methanolHuffer]

A certain popular driver had a camera mounted down on their feet last Sunday and I thought it was a great shot and pretty telling.

It demonstrated that the drivers don't use finesse any more. Simply: pedal down and select your gear. It is not unique to that particular driver and it has been that way for several years now anyway.

If the engine is not making enough power to make the driver have to lighten up on the throttle, there's something wrong.
I know electronic aids are the best way to prevent over-revs and damage to expensive components in the driveline, but it really has dumbed down the racing.

[nigelred5]

I agree. Tha is again, due to efforts to reduce costs. Things like sequential shift without lift gearboxes, long life durable engines with little risk of mechanical failure, fast but boring. How often do we get to see a driver take advantage of a missed shift by another driver. I used to love to watch when they put the cameras on the feet of drivers like Hans Stuck. It's better than ballet watching the footwork of a top driver heel toeing the pedals on a busy road course.

[wedge]

A certain popular driver had a camera mounted down on their feet last Sunday and I thought it was a great shot and pretty telling.

It demonstrated that the drivers don't use finesse any more. Simply: pedal down and select your gear. It is not unique to that particular driver and it has been that way for several years now anyway.

If the engine is not making enough power to make the driver have to lighten up on the throttle, there's something wrong.
I know electronic aids are the best way to prevent over-revs and damage to expensive components in the driveline, but it really has dumbed down the racing.

Agreed

Be it F1/Indycar I would like to see homogolated engines for a certain number of years, limited number of engines available per driver in a season and just get rid of those darn rev limiters.

[CCWS77]

Unpredictability of results was tossed out when it was decided close side by side racing is more important then a competition of different strategy, skill or endurance. This is a philosophical difference based on the idea of what some think the audience wants to see. It is an assumption that fans are not sophisticated enough to follow different strategies in a race and will only root for side by side passing as if it was a Hollywood movie.

I have no idea why so many confuse a spec or a lack of manufacturer participation as a cause of this. What car and equipment teams start with is not really the cause of how much the action is regulated. Likewise if there are all kinds of drivers aids or the regulations cause the cars to be foot to floor is not related to if the car was spec or how many manufacturers there are. If there are phantom competition yellows to keep cars on the same lap is not caused by the level of manufacturer support. Not at all.

[V12]

CCWS77 I get what you're saying, although I do believe that a lack of variety has been a cause of the increasing lack of unpredictability. Not the only cause, and maybe not even the biggest cause, but a significant one nevertheless.

I've always believed that the greater number of differing variables you have in the equation, the more things get mixed up.

Not just in terms of equipment, but let's look at something IndyCar style racing has long had the upper hand in over any other form of motorsport - variety of circuits.

Justin Wilson, struggling (relatively) on the ovals, come the road courses he's right at the front. I'm guessing a combination of the driver making up a bigger percentage of the equation on the road courses, and his style and upbringing being more suited to the roads anyway. Dan Wheldon has long been regarded as stronger on the ovals than on the road courses (despite his European road racing background, his style just seems to be better suited to the ovals).

Look at what's happening in F1 - at slow-speed Monaco the Brawns ran away with it and Button won, high speed (and low-temperature) Silverstone was seen to suit the Red Bulls (upgrade or no) and Vettel took his turn. If Button and Vettel (and everyone else) had been in identical equipment would we have seen such a big swing between the two tracks?

[nigelred5]

Unfortunately they chose the easiest way to create the side by side NASCAR style of oval racing. Slow the cars down and make them easier to drive for anyone sitting behind the wheel. The unskilled can manage to hang on and the skilled can have a cup of tea and a biscuit while checking their email.

I'd prefer seeing them find better drivers.

[CCWS77]

I've always believed that the greater number of differing variables you have in the equation, the more things get mixed up.Why care about how many variables there are when there are arbitrary rules governing what their values can be anyway? Isn't that kind of pointless? All you are doing is adding more variables which need more complicated rules to govern them. Who cares if there are are 7 different chassis and 9 different engines if the exact same one wins every single race? So then instead of being in favor of race outcome being regulated, you will end up in favor of regulating 9 different engines to all have the same performance. To me this is just 2 different versions of the same fakeness. You are still regulating the outcome, just for a different purpose.

The only way to not regulate the outcome is to make sure the range of possibilities at the start was limited. Let the result be unpredictable as different teams move forward from that.

[NickFalzone]

Well I guess what I'd want to see is actual experimentation and engineering going on, within a fixed budget. Where's the excitement in 23 spec cars going out in which the difference is a millimeter on a rear wicker or something because everything else is locked down spec-wise? Larry Curry was on Trackside radio 2 or 3 weeks ago talking about how little the engineers can really do anymore, but no matter how tight they make the spec that top teams will generally still be out front, and the budget teams in the back. Acknowledging that, admitting that's always going to be the case, why not allow some real ingenuity into the paddock? I ask this because I can't imagine what the worst case scenario here is. Very few are watching IndyCar, and I HIGHLY doubt that fanbase would diminish if these engineering risks were made. I'd love to see an IndyCar race where there are 23 cars, half of which on day 1 of practice are still figuring out if their cars can even make it to the end of the race, due to engine, fuel, transmission, or other engineering designs they're coming up with and fixing on the spot. Otherwise really, what's the point? Just rent-a-car from Dallara-Honda and throw some aero bits on it from your wind tunnel tests. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[CCWS77]

I'm all in favor of opening up what can be changed, tweaked or adjusted on a car based on the knowledge and talent of the race team to make it better. How does what car or equipment you were required to start with affect that at all? I don't see the connection whatsoever, yet others act like that is the same thing and what was started with is somehow limiting the rules. It isn't it is a totally different question.