Speed and racing insurance

[indycool]

What brings people to the track is that it's to see the cars and drivers of the Indianapolis 500, first and doremost, IMO.

[garyshell]

What brings people to the track is that it's to see the cars and drivers of the Indianapolis 500, first and doremost, IMO.


That is true at 16th and Georgetown and at one time was also true at other venues around the country, but sadly I think that day is done. At MidOhio and Kentucky Speedway, I think the fans come to see the cars and drivers, but the "of the Indianapolis 500" part is no longer on their mind past May 31. A lot of the luster that you and I grew up with is gone. Washed away by too many years of infighting. The same was true with the Daytona 500 and NASCAR. Folks no longer identify the series with the marquee event except as a point of reference. "Oh, you mean the kind of cars that run at the Indy 500?".

Gary

[indycool]

Gary, I sorta/kinda agree with some of your point. But the Indianapolis and Daytona 500s (mostly Indy) are known all over the world and have stood the test of time. The Masters has a lot of golf tournaments around it, but it's still the frosting on the cake. Same with the Kentucky Derby or the Iditarod or the Calgary Stampede or Wimbledon in lesser or different sports. CART and CC couldn't make it without Indy. We'll see if the IRL can.

[SarahFan]

IC... I agree.... competing and and winning the biggest events is what elevates competitors to become larger than life....



I will also add.... its time for a new track record at INDY.... while far from a cure all.. it would be a shot in the arm... and a platform (speed) to rebuild from...


time for a new car/chassis that will flirt with 237

[indycool]

Ken, I agree with you for the publicity and the progress in the Centennial Era and all that goes with it. Unfortunately, I don't think the safety people will let 'em go that fast. They started dialing 'em down in the early '70s when one year's slowest qualifier beat the previous year's pole speed. Since then, it builds up, then they slow 'em down and it's been that way for 35+ years. Luyendyk himself once said that 237 was too fast and de Ferran said the same thing about 240 at Fontana. Unfortunately, for the grand nature of the beast, I don't think it can happen.

[Hoop-98]

IC... I agree.... competing and and winning the biggest events is what elevates competitors to become larger than life....



I will also add.... its time for a new track record at INDY.... while far from a cure all.. it would be a shot in the arm... and a platform (speed) to rebuild from...


time for a new car/chassis that will flirt with 237

Just need to measure the track FIA like CART,Champcar, did at all their sanctioned ovals (Not Indy)then you can have the record and be safe too, win win...

Arie would have been over 240 that way..

Of course the Indy 519.212 might not have the same ring.


rh

[Hoop-98]

BTW Ken, if you are jonesing for a new record pity the poor air speed record folks. newest record is 20 years old and average is 40.

http://i25.tinypic.com/6pc854.jpg

rh

[SarahFan]

Hoop...

Are you suggesting that flirting with or actually breaking the track record at IMS would be insugnificant?.... Ignored by mainstream press and casual sports fans?

[Hoop-98]

Hoop...

Are you suggesting that flirting with or actually breaking the track record at IMS would be insugnificant?.... Ignored by mainstream press and casual sports fans?

yes I am. Think back to the impact of 1996 and get back to me.

Or tell me about the impact of track records for NASCAR, F1, Champcar, Daytona 500, Monaco etc...

rh

[TURN3]

yes I am. Think back to the impact of 1996 and get back to me.

Or tell me about the impact of track records for NASCAR, F1, Champcar, Daytona 500, Monaco etc...

rh

1996 at Indy was rather irrelevant in the media except for the passing of Brayton. It was a pretty big deal at MIS and Fontana in those years. I agree that flirting with a new track record would bring back a lot of mainstream media but I also agree that that is too damn fast for current technology.

[NickFalzone]

I think that breaking on-track records is more of what IndyCar has been about, and less of what NASCAR has been about. Let's face it, on many or most occasions, the on-track entertainment value of open-wheel racing is a little bit less than stock car racing. This is from someone that prefers open-wheel racing. But the speed, and the high technology to constantly be pushing the limit and breaking records is what this series came from. We're really in a dull spot these days where speeds are flat and all the cars are by and large the same. A lot of the core elements that made this type of racing exciting (and still exist to a large degree in F1) are no longer in the IRL. I still like the series, the competitiveness, and the on-track product, and it's certainly not a safe sport by any means. But something needs to be done in the next few years to break up the monotony, whether it's the new car, new rules package, new safety implementations, or whatever. Once the technology of a series like the IRL is no longer progressing, it's declining. And fan interest is declining with it.

[SarahFan]

well hoop... Were definitly going to disagree on this one....

In the mean time infineon rating will be out Thursday....and sometime soon terry will make a statement about metrics and third stage of a title sponsor search

[Hoop-98]

I think that breaking on-track records is more of what IndyCar has been about, and less of what NASCAR has been about. Let's face it, on many or most occasions, the on-track entertainment value of open-wheel racing is a little bit less than stock car racing. This is from someone that prefers open-wheel racing. But the speed, and the high technology to constantly be pushing the limit and breaking records is what this series came from. We're really in a dull spot these days where speeds are flat and all the cars are by and large the same. A lot of the core elements that made this type of racing exciting (and still exist to a large degree in F1) are no longer in the IRL. I still like the series, the competitiveness, and the on-track product, and it's certainly not a safe sport by any means. But something needs to be done in the next few years to break up the monotony, whether it's the new car, new rules package, new safety implementations, or whatever. Once the technology of a series like the IRL is no longer progressing, it's declining. And fan interest is declining with it.

Can anyone here tell me what the speeds are at Monaco over the years, the Power to Weight Ratio of F1 cars since the 80s, the fact that NASCAR races 18 MPH slower at Daytona than the past, not many I am sure.

Absolute speed has nothing to do with the success or lack thereof, IMO, of the various series.

It is far more complicated than that to build interest, making Indycars 10 MPH faster or 10 MPH slower would make no difference, IMO.

F1 or NASCAR are not tied to track records.

NASCAR is good ole boys and beer, F1 is exclusiveness , if suddenly F1 could go 10 MPH faster for 6 mill a year it would be history.

CART tried the we're faster, well that didn't work.

Of course this is all my opinion....

How many people remember Awesome Bills Pole, i do...

rh

[Hoop-98]

well hoop... Were definitly going to disagree on this one....

In the mean time infineon rating will be out Thursday....and sometime soon terry will make a statement about metrics and third stage of a title sponsor search

I guess you have defined what means the most to you in racing, ratings, and Press releases, we will have to agree to disagree... As Jack Nicholson said once, if that worked for me....


rh

[SarahFan]

I guess you have defined what means the most to you in racing, ratings, and Press releases, we will have to agree to disagree... As Jack Nicholson said once, if that worked for me....


rh



Now your just being silly hoop

[Hoop-98]

Now your just being silly hoop


i don't think so. The ratings and Terry's quotes and "new track records" are a lot more important to you than me, based on your posts.

rh

[SarahFan]

and you like to present yourself as being 'above it all' on those topics...

bottomline is ratings ...the biz of the sport.... etc...are in fact relevant


and


as I've said every time you and a few others attempt to point out the silly notion that I am not a fan.....

go back thru this season..... I'll put my posting (the quantity and quality) on the teams racers and events up against any on this forum.....

[Hoop-98]

and you like to present yourself as being 'above it all' on those topics...

bottomline is ratings ...the biz of the sport.... etc...are in fact relevant


and


as I've said every time you and a few others attempt to point out the silly notion that I am not a fan.....

go back thru this season..... I'll put my posting (the quantity and quality) on the teams racers and events up against any on this forum.....

Not sure if I am above or below it all Ken, it is just that my interests are different than yours. i am sorry you feel that is a charge you are a worse fan, merely a different fan...

No idea why you presume my interests as above yours, just different.

And were they (ratings etc) relevant to "new track record" discussions?

We were discussing the role of Indy Speeds, why did you feel compelled to bring up ratings and PR quotes in that discussion?

rh

[TURN3]

and you like to present yourself as being 'above it all' on those topics...

bottomline is ratings ...the biz of the sport.... etc...are in fact relevant


and


as I've said every time you and a few others attempt to point out the silly notion that I am not a fan.....

go back thru this season..... I'll put my posting (the quantity and quality) on the teams racers and events up against any on this forum.....

I noticed you didn't offer you're betting record there buster!! :D

[garyshell]

I think it is mighty easy for someone to call for the need for new track records when you aren't the one putting your life on the line or paying for the spectator insurance coverage. Sorry but I honestly think it is unconscionable to call for ever faster racing, as if it was the key to GOOD racing. As I have stated time and again, no one standing at the track could, without the aid of a stopwatch, discern the speed difference from one year to the next, back in the day when records fell each year. Therefore it was an artificial addition to the event. Sure hearing that "and it's another track record" announcement was exciting, but IMO totally superfluous to the real action on the track.

Gary

[SarahFan]

I think it is mighty easy for someone to call for the need for new track records when you aren't the one putting your life on the line or paying for the spectator insurance coverage. Sorry but I honestly think it is unconscionable to call for ever faster racing, as if it was the key to GOOD racing. As I have stated time and again, no one standing at the track could, without the aid of a stopwatch, discern the speed difference from one year to the next, back in the day when records fell each year. Therefore it was an artificial addition to the event. Sure hearing that "and it's another track record" announcement was exciting, but IMO totally superfluous to the real action on the track.

Gary

hogwash

are you suggesting that 237 today is more dangerous than 237 in 96'?...hans, safer, wheel tethers etc...?

I dont buy that for second

and can you support your insurance claim in any way or fashion? or is that simply a made up argument?...if you can please do so


and go back to IC comment about folks being first and foremost interested because these are the cars that race at IMS..... well back in the day there were tens of thousands of folks showing up at the speedway (with stopwatch in hand) during the month of to witness the spectacle of speed...... today?..not so much..... and what was the Tv rating this year?

[SarahFan]

And were they (ratings etc) relevant to "new track record" discussions?

We were discussing the role of Indy Speeds, why did you feel compelled to bring up ratings and PR quotes in that discussion?

rh

I believe they are relevent....clearly you dont... i suggest your wrong...

as i said to gary.....tens of thousands showed up to witness the month of may.....and as IC suggests... overall interest in the sport is linked to IMS


I'm sure you can connect the dots....although i suspect you will choese not to and make another silly comment instead

[SarahFan]

and gary.... are you seriosly suggesting that folks at the track last sat for qualifying couldn't tell the difference between Milka and Dario?

[garyshell]

I think it is mighty easy for someone to call for the need for new track records when you aren't the one putting your life on the line or paying for the spectator insurance coverage. Sorry but I honestly think it is unconscionable to call for ever faster racing, as if it was the key to GOOD racing. As I have stated time and again, no one standing at the track could, without the aid of a stopwatch, discern the speed difference from one year to the next, back in the day when records fell each year. Therefore it was an artificial addition to the event. Sure hearing that "and it's another track record" announcement was exciting, but IMO totally superfluous to the real action on the track.

Gary


hogwash

are you suggesting that 237 today is more dangerous than 237 in 96'?...hans, safer, wheel tethers etc...?

I dont buy that for second

and can you support your insurance claim in any way or fashion? or is that simply a made up argument?...if you can please do so


and go back to IC comment about folks being first and foremost interested because these are the cars that race at IMS..... well back in the day there were tens of thousands of folks showing up at the speedway (with stopwatch in hand) during the month of to witness the spectacle of speed...... today?..not so much..... and what was the Tv rating this year?


and gary.... are you seriosly suggesting that folks at the track last sat for qualifying couldn't tell the difference between Milka and Dario?


No, but I am suggesting that either:

a) you didn't read what I wrote
b) you want to put words in my mouth

I never said it was more dangerous now. I am saying a continuously escalating war for more speed records each year is a recipe for disaster. If you don't want to believe the insurance claim, tell me why the speeds were reduced after things hit 237? Hint, I don't think it was the sanctioning body alone that decided to do that.

I also never said a word about being able to tell which driver was faster. Read what I DID say, it's quoted right here so you don't have to scroll far. I said no one could tell from one year to the next the difference in speed. But lets take it to your example, shall we. I will assert that on a given day when two track records are set that if you show video of both to any fan they will not be able to tell you which was faster. Only with a stop watch would they ever know.

I could care less about such records when they are a fleeting moment on a stopwatch during qualifying, compared to the hours long battle that is the race? I come to see the race. But more to the point, let me ask you a question. Do you go to the track to see the cars driven by the drivers, or do you go to see the drivers drive the cars?

Gary

[indycool]

We have been in a changing period for some time. Tom Carnegie's famous "It's a new track record" at Indy will not be heard again most places.

It is the era we're in and the change in the scenario.

When Bill Elliott qualified a stock car at 212 at Talladega, NASCAR went to restrictor plates. Now people argue about them creating the "Big One" every time they run there.

Can safety be diminished if they let 'em run? Most in charge of every sanctioning body thinks so. Road racing fans generally think of things in time, oval fans in speed. Speed is more important to oval fans than time.

I can still remember a post-qualifying interview with Jimmy Bryan at Indy when he said, "when 148 won't make the field, I won't be here."

A "new track record" at Indy is a loss in promotional capability and interest. But I don't see a way around it.

[chuck34]

I could care less about such records when they are a fleeting moment on a stopwatch during qualifying, compared to the hours long battle that is the race? I come to see the race. But more to the point, let me ask you a question. Do you go to the track to see the cars driven by the drivers, or do you go to see the drivers drive the cars?

Gary

I sort of agree with this. But look at attendance for Pole Day at IMS. It's pretty much a ghost town now (it is up the last year or two, by my estimation). Used to be that the place was packed. What do you think changed that? It sure wasn't the racing.

I honestly don't think that speed really counts for a whole lot in racing. The one BIG exception being Indy. Afterall that is why the place was built.

And truth be told, you don't have to make the cars go 237. You make them go about 230. In the tow they go about 232. That way the fans will hear about all these big speeds the week leading up to Pole Day, and how if conditions are right, we might just see a new track record again. Even though it won't happen. But it will draw people out again, IMHO.

And 230 is safe enough. If a driver doesn't think so, there are plenty of others out there willing to take the risk. Sorry, but if you don't want to accept the risks, there are other lines of work for you.

[chuck34]

We have been in a changing period for some time. Tom Carnegie's famous "It's a new track record" at Indy will not be heard again most places.

It is the era we're in and the change in the scenario.

When Bill Elliott qualified a stock car at 212 at Talladega, NASCAR went to restrictor plates. Now people argue about them creating the "Big One" every time they run there.

Can safety be diminished if they let 'em run? Most in charge of every sanctioning body thinks so. Road racing fans generally think of things in time, oval fans in speed. Speed is more important to oval fans than time.

I can still remember a post-qualifying interview with Jimmy Bryan at Indy when he said, "when 148 won't make the field, I won't be here."

A "new track record" at Indy is a loss in promotional capability and interest. But I don't see a way around it.

They've been saying that racing is too fast since Ben Hur. I will say that maybe something should be done about the catch fences. But once we figure something out there, let 'em rip.

[indycool]

Chuck, the Speedway HAS adjusted to some things. No. 1, you're not going to get the crowds who want to see the first 150 mph lap or first 200 mph lap. If they were bordering 250, yes, but that's not gonna happen.

The change in qualifying procedure has helped qualifying attendance. The biggest change has been moving Carb Day from Thursday to Friday and adding a concert. Those crowds are now bigger than ever before.

And a lot of people forget when those "huge crowds" of years ago showed up, there weren't 270,000 seats there. How many they really had, we'll never know.

Yes, almost EVERY track is already looking at, or has already raised, or has already changed the inward angle, of catch fencing. But racing isn't like hockey, where you can build a glass shell around it.

[chuck34]

Chuck, the Speedway HAS adjusted to some things. No. 1, you're not going to get the crowds who want to see the first 150 mph lap or first 200 mph lap. If they were bordering 250, yes, but that's not gonna happen.

I'm not saying that we'll ever see those same crowds again. But if they start flirting with a record again, interest will raise, and I think attendence will with it.


The change in qualifying procedure has helped qualifying attendance. The biggest change has been moving Carb Day from Thursday to Friday and adding a concert. Those crowds are now bigger than ever before.

I agree the Carb Day move was good. And, to my eye at least, attendence for all qual. days is up over the last few years as well.


And a lot of people forget when those "huge crowds" of years ago showed up, there weren't 270,000 seats there. How many they really had, we'll never know.

I have no idea how many people were really there on past Pole Days. But the front straight stands haven't changed, and they were full "back in the day". So to me that means attendence is down significantly.


Yes, almost EVERY track is already looking at, or has already raised, or has already changed the inward angle, of catch fencing. But racing isn't like hockey, where you can build a glass shell around it.

I'm not saying it's easy or that it will be anything like hockey. But that doesn't mean it's an impossible task.

[SarahFan]

No, but I am suggesting that either:

a) you didn't read what I wrote
b) you want to put words in my mouth

I never said it was more dangerous now. I am saying a continuously escalating war for more speed records each year is a recipe for disaster. If you don't want to believe the insurance claim, tell me why the speeds were reduced after things hit 237? Hint, I don't think it was the sanctioning body alone that decided to do that.

I also never said a word about being able to tell which driver was faster. Read what I DID say, it's quoted right here so you don't have to scroll far. I said no one could tell from one year to the next the difference in speed. But lets take it to your example, shall we. I will assert that on a given day when two track records are set that if you show video of both to any fan they will not be able to tell you which was faster. Only with a stop watch would they ever know.

I could care less about such records when they are a fleeting moment on a stopwatch during qualifying, compared to the hours long battle that is the race? I come to see the race. But more to the point, let me ask you a question. Do you go to the track to see the cars driven by the drivers, or do you go to see the drivers drive the cars?



Gary


well then what exactly did your first sentence imply?

and the insurance claim should be easy to back up right......please do


you may not care about a 'fleeting' track record..... but based on crowds during the month of may its pretty clear others do/did

and i put no words in your mouth.... simply asked a question

[SarahFan]

And a lot of people forget when those "huge crowds" of years ago showed up, there weren't 270,000 seats there. How many they really had, we'll never know.

.

are you suggesting the crowds weren't significantly bigger in the past?

[indycool]

I'm suggesting that when there were full "months of May" and milestones like 150 and 200 to be reached, there were significantly more people.

During the week with a full "Snake Pit", etc., I don't know HOW significant that claim is.

[garyshell]

I sort of agree with this. But look at attendance for Pole Day at IMS. It's pretty much a ghost town now (it is up the last year or two, by my estimation). Used to be that the place was packed. What do you think changed that? It sure wasn't the racing.

I also don't think it had anything to do with the lack of new records either.


I honestly don't think that speed really counts for a whole lot in racing. The one BIG exception being Indy. Afterall that is why the place was built.

Funny, I thought it was built for racing, not for new records.


And truth be told, you don't have to make the cars go 237. You make them go about 230. In the tow they go about 232. That way the fans will hear about all these big speeds the week leading up to Pole Day, and how if conditions are right, we might just see a new track record again. Even though it won't happen. But it will draw people out again, IMHO.

And 230 is safe enough. If a driver doesn't think so, there are plenty of others out there willing to take the risk. Sorry, but if you don't want to accept the risks, there are other lines of work for you.

So where do you stop? 235, 240, 250, 275, 300? Why start setting the expectation of new records each year when we know full well that there will have to be a limit? Other lines of work besides setting new track records, oh you mean other work like RACING? And what about the safety of the rest of the people at the track?

Gary

[garyshell]

And a lot of people forget when those "huge crowds" of years ago showed up, there weren't 270,000 seats there. How many they really had, we'll never know.

Come on IC, that is a total red herring and you know it. There were HUGE crowds compared to what is there now during qualifying. You and I were both there to witness that.

Gary

[Marbles]

Ultimate speeds only matter to the a group of the hardcore and they're already watching. I don't think the great unwashed will be anymore impressed by 240 than they will be by 210 or 220. If we want to awe them with numbers then the speeds should be reported in KPH and not MPH.

In today's world the slowest thing about the race car is the driver. Unless we start creating drive-by-wire race cars and G suits for the drivers than I think man has pretty much reached his limit with regards to speed in a motor vehicle.


...has DP signed? ;)

[garyshell]

I think it is mighty easy for someone to call for the need for new track records when you aren't the one putting your life on the line or paying for the spectator insurance coverage. Sorry but I honestly think it is unconscionable to call for ever faster racing, as if it was the key to GOOD racing. As I have stated time and again, no one standing at the track could, without the aid of a stopwatch, discern the speed difference from one year to the next, back in the day when records fell each year. Therefore it was an artificial addition to the event. Sure hearing that "and it's another track record" announcement was exciting, but IMO totally superfluous to the real action on the track.

Gary



well then what exactly did your first sentence imply?

and the insurance claim should be easy to back up right......please do


you may not care about a 'fleeting' track record..... but based on crowds during the month of may its pretty clear others do/did

My first sentence didn't imply anything about it being more or less dangerous now, it's quoted right here above. Look for yourself.

If you are so certain that the rules to reduce the speed were not brought about under some pressure from the insurance underwriters, then what is YOUR explanation? Did they do it just to piss off the fans and drive them away?

How is it you are so sure that the crowds went away from qualifying because of a lack of records? Don't you think it had just a bit more to do with the infighting that started in 1996?


and i put no words in your mouth.... simply asked a question

Really, then what do you call this:


and gary.... are you seriosly suggesting that folks at the track last sat for qualifying couldn't tell the difference between Milka and Dario?

Please show me ANYTHING that I said that was even REMOTELY about folks ability to notice if Milka was slower than Dario. You DID put words in my mouth with "are you seriosly suggesting", implying that I was suggesting that. I took debate class too, it's a nice ploy if the other side falls for it. I didn't.

Gary

[garyshell]

Ultimate speeds only matter to the a group of the hardcore and they're already watching.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Ultimate speeds only matter to the a group of the hardcore and they're already watching. I don't think the great unwashed will be anymore impressed by 240 than they will be by 210 or 220. If we want to awe them with numbers then the speeds should be reported in KPH and not MPH.

In today's world the slowest thing about the race car is the driver. Unless we start creating drive-by-wire race cars and G suits for the drivers than I think man has pretty much reached his limit with regards to speed in a motor vehicle.


...has DP signed? ;)

funny.... I'm about as far away from a hardcore swimming fan as one can get....

yet i was compelled to tune in for Micheal Phelps breaking each and every record...

go figure

[SarahFan]

If you are so certain that the rules to reduce the speed were not brought about under some pressure from the insurance underwriters


come on gary... back it up... can you?

[SarahFan]

My first sentence didn't imply anything about it being more or less dangerous now, it's quoted right here above. Look for yourself.

y

that's my interpretation of your statement...

if it's not more dangerous than what's the problem?

[SarahFan]

Please show me ANYTHING that I said that was even REMOTELY about folks ability to notice if Milka was slower than Dario. You DID put words in my mouth with "are you seriosly suggesting", implying that I was suggesting that. I took debate class too, it's a nice ploy if the other side falls for it. I didn't.

Gary


not sure what to tell you Gary.... but you implied folks can't tell the difference between speed without a stopwatch....

Dario and Milka is just a clear cut example of how they can...

no words inserted in anyones mouth.... just more of your need for confrontation

[Marbles]

funny.... I'm about as far away from a hardcore swimming fan as one can get....

yet i was compelled to tune in for Micheal Phelps breaking each and every record...



I wasn't. :)

Apples and oranges IMO.

But anyways, I think the mania around Phelps had as much, if not more, to do with him smashing the competition and harvesting all the gold for himself.

If you had, let's say Danica Patrick, win six races in a row then I think that would attract a lot more attention than knocking 2\10's of a second off pole speed at Sonoma.

There are limitations in motorsport. Speed and G forces and man's ability to deal with it, are amongst them. We might as well face up to that now.

[SarahFan]

I wasn't. :)

Apples and oranges IMO.

But anyways, I think the mania around Phelps had as much, if not more, to do with him smashing the competition and harvesting all the gold for himself.

If you had, let's say Danica Patrick, win six races in a row then I think that would attract a lot more attention than knocking 2\10's of a second off pole speed at Sonoma.

There are limitations in motorsport. Speed and G forces and man's ability to deal with it, are amongst them. We might as well face up to that now.

what exactly makes it apples and oranges...


an athlete in a niche sport competing for a record on the sports biggest stage

IMo its a fair comparison...

you mave not have been compelled to watch... but millions of others were

[indycool]

No, Gary, I was there and there were big crowds on those days. And during the split, those crowds WERE down significantly but have started to come back in the last four or five years. Plus, as I mentioned, the Snake Pit and a lot of infield customers were around back then when there was a lot of infield available. And I said HOW significant was in question, not that it wasn't significant -- a little, or medium or a lot in a normal year.

Regarding insurance, I think more of the motivation comes from track owners and developments for safety like the SAFER barrier, and all the cockpit work and anti-intrusion panels on the cars, etc., than the underwriters. Racers themselves want to take care of racers themselves.

[Marbles]

what exactly makes it apples and oranges...


an athlete in a niche sport competing for a record on the sports biggest stage

IMo its a fair comparison...

you mave not have been compelled to watch... but millions of others were

I already indicated what I thought fueled the mania regarding Phelps. Do you think people spent more time watching the clock in the corner of the screen or the swimmer closest to him.

If they changed the rules in Aquatic sports, i.e. no more thousand dollar swim suits... everybody had to wear the same big trunks I wear, and an American came along and threatened to break Phelps all-time record for gold. Do you think people would really care if they were 2\10ths slower?

[SarahFan]

I already indicated what I thought fueled the mania regarding Phelps. Do you think people spent more time watching the clock in the corner of the screen or the swimmer closest to him.

If they changed the rules in Aquatic sports, i.e. no more thousand dollar swim suits... everybody had to wear the same big trunks I wear, and an American came along and threatened to break Phelps all-time record for gold. Do you think people would really care if they were 2\10ths slower?

who cares why.... they were caught up in it


both....

I don't understand your last question

[chuck34]

I also don't think it had anything to do with the lack of new records either.

I'm pretty sure it was a factor. No way of knowing how much.


Funny, I thought it was built for racing, not for new records.

It was built as a test track for the Indianapolis area auto manufacturers. To give them a place to test SPEED and endurance of there product.


So where do you stop? 235, 240, 250, 275, 300? Why start setting the expectation of new records each year when we know full well that there will have to be a limit? Other lines of work besides setting new track records, oh you mean other work like RACING? And what about the safety of the rest of the people at the track?

Gary

You stop just where I said you stop, right around 230. The safety of the other people at the track is an issue. I think those people will be plenty safe with the cars going 230, and probably a bit more than that. If you want to get technical about it, I remember someone being killed by debris in the late '80s-early 90s when the cars were just as fast as today. Should we slow them down from where they currently are?

[chuck34]

No, Gary, I was there and there were big crowds on those days. And during the split, those crowds WERE down significantly but have started to come back in the last four or five years. Plus, as I mentioned, the Snake Pit and a lot of infield customers were around back then when there was a lot of infield available. And I said HOW significant was in question, not that it wasn't significant -- a little, or medium or a lot in a normal year.


I hate arguing this point, but the crowds are down A LOT. Look at qualifing pics from the mid 90's. The stands behind the guys are PACKED. Today there's a lot of empty seats there. Those stands have not changed. But you are right, the crowds are comming back, but there's a LONG way to go.

[chuck34]

Ultimate speeds only matter to the a group of the hardcore and they're already watching. I don't think the great unwashed will be anymore impressed by 240 than they will be by 210 or 220. If we want to awe them with numbers then the speeds should be reported in KPH and not MPH.

In today's world the slowest thing about the race car is the driver. Unless we start creating drive-by-wire race cars and G suits for the drivers than I think man has pretty much reached his limit with regards to speed in a motor vehicle.


...has DP signed? ;)

So you don't think that there is anyone out there that would turn up just to see a new track record? People turn out to see dumber records than that all the time.

[NickFalzone]

IndyCars are to me about the pursuit of speed. Pursuit of speed amongst multiple manufacturers, pursuit of speed by track records, pursuit of speed through technological/safety advances. Yes, there's more to IndyCars than speed, but I'd say more so than F1 or NASCAR, and closer to NHRA, these cars are meant to be pushing the limits. Once they no longer became about pushing the limits with track records and competitors pursuing the best engine/chassis designs, IndyCar became a bit of a bore. Fast spec cars can still be fun to watch, I respect and enjoy the current IndyCar series, but in many ways, important ways, it's a shadow of what it once was. I continue to hope for improvements with the 2011/12 technical package. If it's more of the same, then I think the series chances of making it back to national popularity is pretty much gone.

[garyshell]

come on gary... back it up... can you?

I can't tell you what conversations were had by the insurance folks and their customers and never claimed I could. Nor am I the first person to suggest that insurance underwriters have some influence on safety decisions made by track owners. But can you give me any other reason for the actions or a reason to believe the insurance underwriters DON'T exert any influence?

Gary

[garyshell]

not sure what to tell you Gary.... but you implied folks can't tell the difference between speed without a stopwatch....

Dario and Milka is just a clear cut example of how they can...

no words inserted in anyones mouth.... just more of your need for confrontation

No, I did not. I STATED (not implied) that without a stopwatch, one could not discern the difference in speed between two record breaking laps run a year apart or minutes apart. Once again, you are taking very clear statements on my part and twisting them to fit your message.

Call it confrontational if you want. I call it standing up for what I said, in the face of someone wanting to distort what I said.

Gary

[chuck34]

No, I did not. I STATED (not implied) that without a stopwatch, one could not discern the difference in speed between two record breaking laps run a year apart or minutes apart. Once again, you are taking very clear statements on my part and twisting them to fit your message.

Call it confrontational if you want. I call it standing up for what I said, in the face of someone wanting to distort what I said.

Gary

Don't mean to get in the middle of this ... but

You're right Gary. One can not visually see the difference. But you sure do know it's fast when you hear "It's a neeeeeew traaaaaack record". I know that sent chills up people's spines, and sent waves of excitement through the crowd. I don't think that excitement should be discounted just because you can't tell just by looking.

[garyshell]

Don't mean to get in the middle of this ... but

You're right Gary. One can not visually see the difference. But you sure do know it's fast when you hear "It's a neeeeeew traaaaaack record". I know that sent chills up people's spines, and sent waves of excitement through the crowd. I don't think that excitement should be discounted just because you can't tell just by looking.

Sure it is exciting, but mostly because of Donald Davidson's delivery. He knew how to sell it, long before Vince McMahon ever did. Put Kimmi Raikonen on the microphone and have him say it, see how excited the folks get. And that has been my entire point in this discussion, the whole thing about new track records is artificial. It is not a part of the battles on the track that the folks do see. Even qualifying is a battle on the track, watching the drivers try to eek out that last bit of speed to beat their competitor is something that can be seen and understood without a stopwatch. The record breaking is just icing on some folks cake and a side show to others.

Gary

[chuck34]

Sure it is exciting, but mostly because of Donald Davidson's delivery. He knew how to sell it, long before Vince McMahon ever did. Put Kimmi Raikonen on the microphone and have him say it, see how excited the folks get. And that has been my entire point in this discussion, the whole thing about new track records is artificial. It is not a part of the battles on the track that the folks do see. Even qualifying is a battle on the track, watching the drivers try to eek out that last bit of speed to beat their competitor is something that can be seen and understood without a stopwatch. The record breaking is just icing on some folks cake and a side show to others.

Gary

It wasn't Davidson, it was Tom Carnegie. Small point.

But the thing is, A LOT of the folks that came to watch Pole Day at Indy in "the old days" were there to see records fall. I can't say how many, I don't think anyone can. But I will say it was significant. I'm thinking that even without the split in '96, the following years would have seen a drop off in Pole Day qualifying attendence.

[SarahFan]

I have difficulty telling the difference between "purple" and "grape" but I can sure tell the difference between either of them and "blue". They're all colors at the same end of the spectrum but I can differentiate between many of them. It's all relative and your example is not really well taken.

again i say hogwash...

can the eye tell the difference between 236 and 237 over 4 laps... no... but a stopwatch can.... and i gaurantee the hours and hours of sweat and tears put in by an entire team can also


also...... i can sure tell when a racer is hustln' around the track runnin for pole and another is just out there driven

and i suspect you can too

[Hoop-98]

Just for reference:


http://i28.tinypic.com/1564isp.jpg

rh

[garyshell]

It wasn't Davidson, it was Tom Carnegie. Small point.

But the thing is, A LOT of the folks that came to watch Pole Day at Indy in "the old days" were there to see records fall. I can't say how many, I don't think anyone can. But I will say it was significant. I'm thinking that even without the split in '96, the following years would have seen a drop off in Pole Day qualifying attendance.

Doh! Of course it was Tom, jeeze I can't believe I munged that up. Thanks for the correction.

I do see your point, but I just never bought into the notion that folks were there for the record. I always felt they were there for the excitement of the ontrack activity. Especially in that day when you could really see the drivers muscle the car through the corners. And hear how late one driver would lift for the corner, versus how late another did.

It's like I asked Ken, do you go to watch the cars being driven by the drivers, or do you go to watch the drivers drive the cars. (BTW Ken you never did answer that question.) For me it is simple, I go to see the drivers drive the cars. It has why I am a big proponent of less aero, less wing, fatter tires and more horsepower. And to hell with terminal speed. I just don't care how fast it is, as long as it is fast and I get to see the driver actually drive the car.

Gary

[garyshell]

can the eye tell the difference between 236 and 237 over 4 laps... no... but a stopwatch can....

Isn't that EXACTLY what I have been saying?

Gary

[chuck34]

Doh! Of course it was Tom, jeeze I can't believe I munged that up. Thanks for the correction.

No biggie we all muff one up now and again.


I do see your point, but I just never bought into the notion that folks were there for the record. I always felt they were there for the excitement of the ontrack activity. Especially in that day when you could really see the drivers muscle the car through the corners. And hear how late one driver would lift for the corner, versus how late another did.

Not everyone is/was there for the record. But it was at least a factor in a lot of the people's minds. At least that's what I think. And yes, people did/do go to watch the drivers muscle the cars through the corners. But it is/was even more exciting/special when that driver was able to muscle/finness said car to a new record.


It's like I asked Ken, do you go to watch the cars being driven by the drivers, or do you go to watch the drivers drive the cars. (BTW Ken you never did answer that question.) For me it is simple, I go to see the drivers drive the cars.

For me it's a combo. I want to see a guy that drives a car around the track well. But I also want to see cool new tech. on the cars.


It has why I am a big proponent of less aero, less wing, fatter tires and more horsepower. And to hell with terminal speed. I just don't care how fast it is, as long as it is fast and I get to see the driver actually drive the car.

Gary

I would like to see that sort of thing as well.

[SarahFan]

question for the class

If you were an engineanufacture considering joining the IRL soul the possibility of running for the track record at IMS and/or the closed circuit speed record factor into the equation?

Why or why not?

[SarahFan]

I can't tell you what conversations were had by the insurance folks and their customers and never claimed I could. Nor am I the first person to suggest that insurance underwriters have some influence on safety decisions made by track owners. But can you give me any other reason for the actions or a reason to believe the insurance underwriters DON'T exert any influence?



Gary

Sure you did Gary ...... You said insurance has factored into slowing down the cars.... Others have said as much also

Should be easy to support ....please do

[garyshell]

Sure you did Gary ...... You said insurance has factored into slowing down the cars.... Others have said as much also

Should be easy to support ....please do


Yes I did say that insurance has been a factor. I never said I knew what the conversations were. Nor did I say I could show you the documents, since obviously those would all be private between the two parties. But, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to watch a car nearly climb a catch fence, then see the sanctioning bodies take action to slow the cars down and know that the insurance companies must have had something to say in the matter. Have you ever been paid a visit by your insurance agent to talk about mitigating risk? Insurance companies do not sit idly by as their policy holders do risk things that come to the companies attention. They come talk to you, raise your rates, both or cancel your policy.

My question to you still stands, if this was not a factor, then what drove the need to slow the cars down?

Gary

[SarahFan]

just I'm clear where we are at on this topic Gary


You want me to disprove your point because you have nothingvto support it

Is that correct?

[garyshell]

just I'm clear where we are at on this topic Gary


You want me to disprove your point because you have nothingvto support it

Is that correct?


No Ken I never asked you to disprove my statement. I want to know what else could be a factor. And why you think the insurance companies would NOT be a factor.

There is no way for me to provide you with, what would have been, a confidential conversation or document. We both know that. However, I can tell you that insurance companies can and do, when circumstances arise, make demands on other kinds of companies to change the way they do business to mitigate the insurance risk or face higher premiums or cancellation. The insurance companies have entire departments devoted to this. And I see no reason why that would (or should) be any different with race track insurance. What makes you think they would be any different?

But lets for the sake of discussion say they are. Lets say the insurance companies didn't say a word. Then what prompted the changes?

Gary

[grungex]

Lovely chart, but what is the point you are trying to make with this?



Just for reference:


http://i28.tinypic.com/1564isp.jpg

rh

[indycool]

The tracks are built and procedures are set in place with safety in mind. An inspector from the indurance underwriter inspects the facility shortly before the event. If any changes are needed, the inspector has the authroity to order them at that time. I can't remember the last time an inspector shut a track down.

[SarahFan]

The tracks are built and procedures are set in place with safety in mind. An inspector from the indurance underwriter inspects the facility shortly before the event. If any changes are needed, the inspector has the authroity to order them at that time. I can't remember the last time an inspector shut a track down.

so does it cost more to insure say the IRL at richmond than it does cup at richmond?

[SarahFan]

No Ken I never asked you to disprove my statement. I want to know what else could be a factor. And why you think the insurance companies would NOT be a factor.

There is no way for me to provide you with, what would have been, a confidential conversation or document. We both know that. However, I can tell you that insurance companies can and do, when circumstances arise, make demands on other kinds of companies to change the way they do business to mitigate the insurance risk or face higher premiums or cancellation. The insurance companies have entire departments devoted to this. And I see no reason why that would (or should) be any different with race track insurance. What makes you think they would be any different?

But lets for the sake of discussion say they are. Lets say the insurance companies didn't say a word. Then what prompted the changes?

Gary

sure seems that way Gary.... you claim insurance premeiums have dictated lower speeds.... you can't support your claim.... now you want me to disprove it....

I find it absurd that insurance companies would or could dictate rules to racing teams

don't mistake that with me thinking speed doesn't factor into cost of insurance......I know it does....

so what happens when a team shows up and goes over the ceiling during practice....

does the insurance company step in and say... whoops sorry folks will be in the stands on Sunday slow it down or you cant race?.... or does the Venue pay premium + a penalty?


and i'd suggest development cost containment played a factor in slowing down the speeds.... of coarse along with other numerous falsities assosiated with the creation of the IRL that proved to be false also.....

[indycool]

Ken, I have no idea. Tracks have insurance. There's a difference between spectator and non-spectator races. Sanctioning bodies have insurance. I've never dealt with insurance companies in racing from either side and haven't a clue. I've been on some inspections at street races as a safety person to help resolve potential problems, but that's about it.

[garyshell]

sure seems that way Gary.... you claim insurance premiums have dictated lower speeds.... you can't support your claim.... now you want me to disprove it....

I never asked you disprove it, I merely asked you to suggest what else might have been the cause, or why the insurance companies would not want to raise their premiums as the risks rose with the speed.


I find it absurd that insurance companies would or could dictate rules to racing teams

I find it absurd that you would again put words into my mouth. I never said a think about them influencing the teams. I said their business was with the tracks and sanctioning bodies.


don't mistake that with me thinking speed doesn't factor into cost of insurance......I know it does....

Well then we are in agreement, at least on that point. But if you take that point to its logical conclusion, does it not follow that that cost would have some effect on rules to limit speed? In risk insurance, the increased costs don't just show up, especially on large policies like this. They come with consultation on the mitigation of risk.


so what happens when a team shows up and goes over the ceiling during practice....

does the insurance company step in and say... whoops sorry folks will be in the stands on Sunday slow it down or you cant race?.... or does the Venue pay premium + a penalty?

As I said earlier in this post, the insurance companies and teams are not in direct play. I never suggested they set any sort of ceiling. That notion is ridiculous. I think these discussions are part of the annual renewal process not a day-to-day sort of thing.


and i'd suggest development cost containment played a factor in slowing down the speeds.... of coarse along with other numerous falsities assosiated with the creation of the IRL that proved to be false also.....

The first part of that I understand and fully agree with, escalating cost was a factor as well. I never meant to imply that insurance was the only one. The second part I have no idea what you are driving at. Not saying you are wrong, because there were certainly a lot of things about the creation that proved to be untrue. Just not sure I understand how that affected the intentional slowing of the cars.

Gary

[SarahFan]

I never asked you disprove it, I merely asked you to suggest what else might have been the cause, or why the insurance companies would not want to raise their premiums as the risks rose with the speed.




bottom line gary is you made a claim that you cant back up... not sure what else to tell you on the subject

[SarahFan]

I



I find it absurd that you would again put words into my mouth. I never said a think about them influencing the teams. I said their business was with the tracks and sanctioning bodies.



y

I'm in no way putting words in your mouth... just taking things as you like to say to there logical conclusion.....

ultimatle your saying insurance is dictateing racers slow it down.... in direct conflict with there primary goal.....

that to me is absurd

so what happens when a team eeks just more speed than is expected... are they penalized?.... is the venue?... is the sanctioning body?

[SarahFan]

As I said earlier in this post, the insurance companies and teams are not in direct play. I never suggested they set any sort of ceiling. That notion is ridiculous. I think these discussions are part of the annual renewal process not a day-to-day sort of thing.



y

so lets take homestead for example...

your suggesting that the track owners have there annual meeting with there insurance folks....

the insurance folks say.."hey speeds went up 2% so your rates are now increaed X%'


so the homestead owners get on the phone to the sanctioning bodies (nascar and the IRL) and say 'Slow down becuase we can no longer afford to insure our facilty for your races'


?

[beachbum]

.... and on and on we go. By now this is a very dead horse being beaten by a few diehards.

Some people want to roll back the clock and hear "its a new track record", (which wouldn't be the same if spoken by anyone other than Tom Carnegie)

Other recognize the realities of every increasing speeds. The kinetic energy of an object (like a race car) increases with the square of the speed. So increase the speed at Indy by 20 mph from 220 to 240. The speed increases 9% but the energy of the car increases 20%. In a crash, that energy has to be dissipated to reduce injury. Already fans are complaining about drivers getting seriously injured, although the current cars can withstand an amazing amount of energy absorption in an impact. But what about the catch fence? Add 20% more energy, and what do you need to do to the fence (and the walls) to contain the debris?

In a turn, that energy has to be handled by the tires or the car loses traction. The increased G Forces have to be handled by the human body. Texas has already proven there is a reachable limit there. If you take away down force and / or traction, corner speeds go down, but straightaway speeds go up (less drag). Overall lap speed may not change much but the danger goes up.

Change the speeds from 220 to 250, and the energy goes up 30%. Can the current cars and human body withstand that much energy? Can the track facilities?

Racing is what it is. Speeds will always be restricted. The very easiest (and cheapest) safety feature that can be added to a vehicle is reduced speed. Frankly, I have seen great racing a relatively slow speeds, and while technical innovation and raw speed is always an attraction, reality dictates there must be some limits. If you just want to see raw speed, go to Bonneville. Incidentally, they have speed limits based on equipment and driver skill, so......

Carry on..............

Just how did this thread get hijacked?

[SarahFan]

.... and on and on we go. By now this is a very dead horse being beaten by a few diehards.




not the first time and wont be the last...

no one.. certainly not i is saying turn em loose to 250 and lets shoot for 300...

all i'm saying is flirting with and possibly breaking 237 at IMS would be a shot in the arm for the Visibility of the IRL.... something is desperatly needs IMO

if inusrance inclreased at IMS by say 1mil a year becuase they were running 235-238 would it not be worth it at this juncture?

[indycool]

Safety-wise, SAFETY, not insurance, NO.

[NickFalzone]

I'm with Ken on this. And I don't think the drivers or teams trying to break the 200 mph mark at Indy thought what they were doing was particularly safe either. Going 237 at Indy now is IMO a lot safer than going 200 when they hadn't ever gone that fast at the track prior. I'm certainly not for out of control speeds and records being broken. But I do think a mph or even a half a mph increase each year is not unreasonable, and unfortunately what I've been seeing is the opposite on many tracks.

[garyshell]

bottom line gary is you made a claim that you cant back up...

It would appear that the ONLY thing that would satisfy you is a purloined physical document. Never mind a logical discussion. It's documentation or nothing. I get it.


not sure what else to tell you on the subject

Yet you will go on... witnessed by the next two messages in this thread.

I am done. You win. Insurance companies have never in the past and never will in the future exert any influence on tracks or sanctioning bodies. They have specifically forbid their risk management teams from consulting with their race track and sanctioning body policy holders. There, feel better now?

Gary

[garyshell]

Starter,

Thanks for moving this to a separate thread.

Gary