New car news!! [Archive] - Page 2

anthonyvop

24th November 2011, 15:19

Actually when Swift cars were being built, they won the first time out in all categories, CART, F-Atlantic, and FFord. Maybe IC should have contacted them to get the company out of mothballs and build a decent, well-engineered single-seater.

Swift had a proposal for the new Indycar

http://api.ning.com/files/HweFwIBQDuYaVJBJCFrumJ1o3yAOL4pp5TXUJZ6OmR1r59ZZxP bq2pGumW7*1raW5xKlg0-JLYeWAjPflMYGHYgfRmSP0XEn/Swift2012Cars.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QRstYe4Q5Vs/S3BVNEG5YwI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/6lJrXy35-nI/s1600/1.PNG

Actually the had various concepts
http://pressdog.typepad.com/files/swift-indycar-announcement-feb2010-1.pdf

champcarray

24th November 2011, 15:42

Chris R

24th November 2011, 16:29

I am not uch of a conspiracy sort of person - but I have to agree - Dallara was the weakest of the concepts... i think their agreeing to produce in Indy might have done the trick....

Loneranger

24th November 2011, 16:48

The new car accomplishes absolutely nothing, and will likely only compound issues that already exist, those being that the current car is boring, slow and uninspiring.

If you want to stir the imaginations and interests of fans around the world it will take something revolutionary.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110119212950/gran-turismo/images/7/79/X1_Carbon.jpg

Nobody has raved about the new car. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY! Not Dan Wheldon, not Tony Kanaan, not Dario, not Power, not a single fan, nobody is raving about it and we are in a time that we need a car that people rave about. The DW12 is just another boring car in a long line of boring cars and how the hell does the series expect fans to get excited about it or the racing when they can't even get their own drivers excited about it? The answer is, you can't!!!

Chris R

24th November 2011, 18:47

ok, I haven't seen that picture before - is it a real car or a CGI?? Also, I agree Loneranger - and the picture you are showing is pretty easy to get excited about - even thought i am not a canopy fan - this thing rocks,,,, now - would it work - is the aero practical or just cool looking??

SarahFan

24th November 2011, 19:01

That car is simply F'en cool looking.... Line up 33 of those going 240 at the speedway and you have a platform to build upon

jwhite9185

24th November 2011, 19:14

Least they didn't choose the Delta Wing...

Chris R

24th November 2011, 19:39

you know, it just occurred to me - NASCAR might have the right idea since 240 etc. keeps coming up (and if they ever went to this red bull car I think it would be the equivalent of say "boys have at it" from a speed point of view)... roof flaps or something similar that deploys if a car gets airborne to push the sucker back down..... would probably have to be some sort of electro-mechanical thing (combine the roof flap with DRS??)with a ton of sensors and what not, but might be plausible.....

SarahFan

24th November 2011, 19:45

Least they didn't choose the Delta Wing...

Right about now I'm thinking they wish they had

Chris R

24th November 2011, 19:49

at least the Delta wing had a clear purpose and design direction.... It may not have been the final solution as it was presented, but it was a bold step forward as opposed to what appears to be a blind stumble (although I am sure this car will work fine in the end, it is just the evolution of a formula that reached its zenith almost 20 years ago.........

Loneranger

24th November 2011, 21:26

What the series needs is this:

http://rawautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lamborghini-aventador-opt-1298576388.jpg

What we continue to be given is this:

http://besttopdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2002-Pontiac-Aztek-Yellow.jpg

Chris R

29th November 2011, 13:49

Marshall Pruitt's article on the new car is up at speed - very interesting read.... I'll re-read later for more detail - but it sounds like Dallara more or less messed up the basic concept and more than a few people suspected it going in.... Also sounds like Dallara might have been overly optimistic on the requests it made of vendor supplied parts.....

My gut feeling is that they are going to make it work for the year with band-aids, the numbers will be ok but nobody is ever going to be comfortable with the car, and this car will be short lived - maybe one or two seasons at most - while he does not out and out say it - it just sounds like this car has some fundamental problems that might not be practically fixable in the most ideal sense of the word....

So, it sounds like the ICONIC panel really was just smoke and mirrors after all.... nobody really was watching the development of the car all that well....

The core of the sport is just too - something - they don't seem to listen to much of anyone when it gets down to it and have not for years - even generations.....

DBell

29th November 2011, 13:52

Here is an article by Pruett detailing the problems with the new car. The problems are significant and they seem to be trying to solve them without spending more money. F1 drivers say they can usually tell right out of the box if a new car has potential or is a dog. I think I hear the DW12 barking.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-2012-cars-design-development-issues

ykiki

30th November 2011, 00:09

Chris R

30th November 2011, 01:21

it is interesting that the rear weight bias it a real problem - probably means the Delta wing would have been a nightmare..... sounds like it has a bit of a pendulum effect in the turns at Indy....

pitwall3

30th November 2011, 06:48

I preferred every one of Swift's designs to Dallara's. I also liked the "Swiftlights" system for displaying throttle, fuel, and race position. I sometimes wonder who paid off who to keep Dallara the chassis of choice.

Bruce Ashmore's comments on the bidding process in Gordon Kirby's recent article. Makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2011/the_way_it_is_no310.html

"We lost the bid because the winner put in a business plan, not a plan for the car. It was a building on Main Street in Speedway and a business plan for the build and supply of all the cars but nothing for the design of the car. The rest of us believed we were putting in a plan for the design of a car and that the winner would be the best design."

I am evil Homer

30th November 2011, 10:06

The basic problem seems to be does anyone know how the tender process worked for the new car? The names I hear bandied about - Dallara, Lola etc never excited me. How about asking the likes of Newey, or McLaren Automotive to sumbit a concept? Did it even happen or was the entire process skewed towards Dallara doing?

fan-veteran

30th November 2011, 18:55

Good thought, but they needed someone who also had the production capability for chassis and parts support for the new car.
And McLaren for example does not have such capability ;) But .. come on, in the whole USA they were unable to find at least one manufacturer to develop and produce an open wheel racing chassis ... for the north American equivalent of Formula 1 ??? How that sounds to you?

anthonyvop

30th November 2011, 21:58

And McLaren for example does not have such capability ;) But .. come on, in the whole USA they were unable to find at least one manufacturer to develop and produce an open wheel racing chassis ... for the north American equivalent of Formula 1 ??? How that sounds to you?

IndyCar is no way near to being an equivalent to F1.
In F1 teams are constantly developing, modifying and building new parts. Dallara just needed to crank out one design and replacement parts. Lola, Swift and Panoz could do the same or quickly get up to speed to do the same. Remember that part of the deal was for Dallara to set up a production facility in Indy.

I am evil Homer

1st December 2011, 11:26

And McLaren for example does not have such capability ;) But .. come on, in the whole USA they were unable to find at least one manufacturer to develop and produce an open wheel racing chassis ... for the north American equivalent of Formula 1 ??? How that sounds to you?

It does have the potential capacity to do it though.

But why does it have to be US-based? Surely the success of a series should based on getting the best possible base car to begin with, to create a competitive and attractive sreries for teams, sponsors and fans. The whole thing smacks of doing it on the cheap and praying it all works out for the best.

Steve-o

1st December 2011, 13:41

Dixon and Briscoe test the new car at California

The Voice of The Fan: FVP: Scott Dixon And Ryan Briscoe Test New Indycar At California (http://www.fanviewpoint.com/2011/12/scott-dixon-and-ryan-briscoe-test-new.html)

SarahFan

1st December 2011, 14:16

No speeds/times!!??!!??

I am evil Homer

1st December 2011, 14:20

Still talking about shifting weight forward....that sounds like a fundamental chassis flaw that could only be reversed with so major changes

Chris R

1st December 2011, 14:48

Still talking about shifting weight forward....that sounds like a fundamental chassis flaw that could only be reversed with so major changes

Time to "Panoz" (LMS car) it and put the engine in the front!! :-)

Seriously, they have moved the driver back so far in the name of safety (not complaining - just observing) - that perhaps the proper layout of oval racing is once again front engine - that would allow them to properly protect the rear wheels without major concern for weight. It might also both look and function better in term of providing an opportunity for the front wheels to be protected since you would need bulkier bodywork to enclose the engine etc....

Chris R

1st December 2011, 14:56

I wonder how long before the team owners are crying to ALLOW new bodywork this year??? :-)

call_me_andrew

3rd December 2011, 03:01

But why does it have to be US-based?

Because protectionists will pay extra for that sort of thing.

anthonyvop

3rd December 2011, 14:25

nigelred5

3rd December 2011, 20:43

It does have the potential capacity to do it though.

But why does it have to be US-based? Surely the success of a series should based on getting the best possible base car to begin with, to create a competitive and attractive sreries for teams, sponsors and fans. The whole thing smacks of doing it on the cheap and praying it all works out for the best.

Two words- EXCHANGE RATE. Same reason Champcar went with Panoz.. That was a major consideration when choosing not only who got the contract, but WHERE it was built. Exchange rate fluctuations have always affected the cost of buying race cars..and replacement parts. It was also a deliberate effort of a Non government entity to create jobs and stimulate the local Indiana economy. Lola wasn't going to open up a new shop and Swift has their production in California and when asked, were unwilling to relocate. The Chioce of Dallara may be biting them in the ass.

Swift absolutely could have designed and built car, and I venture to say better looking one at that. I don't recall PAnoz entering the process, but they have their business issues we've all heard about.

jimispeed

4th December 2011, 20:34

Some new and interesting info.......

AUTO RACING - INDYCAR: Inside The 2012 Car's Design & Development Issues (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-2012-cars-design-development-issues/)

anthonyvop

5th December 2011, 01:22

jimispeed

5th December 2011, 01:53

New? We have been discussing that article for the past week.

Sorry Dbell, I didn't notice your post! Carry on!

I am evil Homer

5th December 2011, 09:51

Thanks for the info - I assumed it was something of the sort in terms of tax etc.

anthonyvop

8th December 2011, 19:41

Andrewmcm

9th December 2011, 13:27

Seriously?
2011 can't end soon enough for IndyCar

Is next-generation IndyCar race car safer than the previous one? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/brant_james/12/08/new.indy.car.safety/index.html)

Design in a compromise. If we allowed an infinite amount of time to consider every aspect of a product then a) it wouldn't function as intended, and b) it would never get made. Indycar is very sensitive about certain facets of safety at present, which is understandable. 20/20 hindsight is of course a wonderful thing too.

Chris R

9th December 2011, 20:46

saw some pretty grainy video from Homestead- look like they might have lost the "snorkle" and did something with the rear of the car... still looks like some pretty sizable "hips" - but they appear to be working on it hard....

for what it is worth, I was reading Mario Andretti's book by Gordon Kirby at lunch... The section about the first Lola in 1983 was interesting - apparently Lola deliver a real dog too - and with hard work it was a winner by the end of the year.... My point being - while I would prefer they get it right the first time, if Mario was tweeting what a POS the first Lola was back in 1983 many would have thought the sky was falling too - as long as they are showing that they are working on the car I have (a little) faith that it will be good by the time it is really racing....

So, if the teams are supposed to get the cars next week, what are they going to do with them if they are not really ready????

jimispeed

10th December 2011, 02:32

Freeze the video. These cars look pretty d*** good! I'd be a fan!

IZOD IndyCar Series 2012 car test at Homestead - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqFeIP2vZYw)

*On second look I think I see the airbox, but I can definitely see it without one, and that would get my vote!!

00steven

10th December 2011, 03:24

People keep on pissing and moaning, but come St. Pete these cars will be fine.

jimispeed

10th December 2011, 03:54

Freeze the video. These cars look pretty d*** good! I'd be a fan!

IZOD IndyCar Series 2012 car test at Homestead - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqFeIP2vZYw)

Definitely no airbox................hallelujah!!

jwhite9185

10th December 2011, 10:58

Looks like the Honda has one but the Chevy doesn't to me. Also the rear of the side pods look smaller to me too, although its hard to tell.

anthonyvop

10th December 2011, 17:28

The cars were measurable slower as well as visually. They never came close to breaking the 26 sec barrier even when running nose to tail.

jimispeed

11th December 2011, 23:49

Yet another article.......

AUTO RACING - INDYCAR: 2012 Dallara Improving On Ovals (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-2012-dallara-improving-on-ovals)

call_me_andrew

12th December 2011, 02:29

Oh dear, we've built cars that drivers can't corner flat out with. Wait, why is this bad again?

Andrewmcm

12th December 2011, 11:48

This is a good point. Why is reaching 2011 oval speeds the desired requirement? Fine if they reach 2011 speeds with a much changed aero/HP package (i.e. low downforce and monster HP to remove pack racing) but if we end up with a high downforce, low HP solution then all we're going to have is the same style of racing on ovals with a car is that is slightly more pleasing on the eye than the previous machine.

beachbum

12th December 2011, 12:13

garyshell

12th December 2011, 16:06

Oh dear, we've built cars that drivers can't corner flat out with. Wait, why is this bad again?

I have been wondering the same thing.

I just think there are some "fans" who will complain about everything.

But, but, but we just HAVE to have "a new track record" announced at Indy or the sky will fall and the Earth will crack open at 16th and Georgetown and swallow up the track and spectators.

Gary

SarahFan

12th December 2011, 22:20

That's a little
Dramatic Gary....

Of coarse reality the sports in the dumper and doesn't have a single block to build on at this point..

Cam you name a better block than speed?

garyshell

12th December 2011, 23:26

That's a little
Dramatic Gary....

Of coarse reality the sports in the dumper and doesn't have a single block to build on at this point..

Cam you name a better block than speed?

Sure, how about competitive racing. If all we chase is speed, then we get what we have now, namely 100% throttle "racing". I want to see the drivers have to lift in the corners, which requires some differential in cornering speeds and straight line speeds. Which will most likely come at the expense of top speed.

Gary

SarahFan

12th December 2011, 23:41

What you want is irrelevant

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 01:12

How much tv revenue does spec miata produce?

Indycar: we lift in the corners!

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 04:25

That's where you and I completely 100% disagree ...

Competitive it subjective ... Look no further than the IRL putting up a string on close finishes and still seeing declines in attendance and ratings .., loss if teams sponsors and tracks

Posters have been telling me for years I'm wrong yet the decline in popularity is palatable

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 05:05

Your definition is subjective

fan-veteran

13th December 2011, 06:13

I think it's time to say that the new car is a .. failure. That's right. It is in fact uglier than previous, slower, aerodynamically inefficient and delicate. And it seems overpriced to me as well. The only positive side is safety measures in hiding wheels. Bad job from Dallara. But hey, i'm sure a Chinese manufacturer could do far better job for a half price :p :

Chris R

13th December 2011, 11:40

as for the speed thing, when was the last time NASCAR had "a new track record" at an "old" track??

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 12:15

as for the speed thing, when was the last time NASCAR had "a new track record" at an "old" track??

NASCAR currently has a fan base and a working biz model...Indycar doesn't

Chris R

13th December 2011, 14:31

NASCAR currently has a fan base and a working biz model...Indycar doesn't

true, but they built a lot of the casual fanbase long after Awesome Bill's big speeds of the mid 1980's.... I want to see faster cars too - but I am not sure that will being people back - I think there is more to it than speed - what, I am not sure.....

honestly, I think Indycar has been a bit "hoity toity" over the years - which suit me fine - I am a bit of a snob myself - but I think it may tend to alienate too many and it also tends to make some think they are really more successful than they truly are (and nobody is all that willing to help someone or something they think is more successful than them)...

Last, but not least, I think there is a bit of an industrial conspiracy against AOWR in general. Both NASCAR and F1 know that IF Indycar ever "got it together" they would have inferior products and Indycar could have them both for lunch.... So, I think there are more than a few in the industry who could cut Indycar some slack that are not doing it and indeed may even be acting in a manner to impede success of Indycar....

Last but not least, Indycar is its own worst enemy. It has been run by a group of people who really do not understand or care about the world too far beyond Indianapolis (or the mid-west anyway) for many many years. Even the CART guys rarely had a true world view (or even a USA wide view)...

Bottom line is that while speed is important, I think it is toward the bottom of the top 10 list of problems with Indycar and in and of itself won't make much difference without fixing other issues too....

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 15:09

DexDexter

13th December 2011, 15:47

true, but they built a lot of the casual fanbase long after Awesome Bill's big speeds of the mid 1980's.... I want to see faster cars too - but I am not sure that will being people back - I think there is more to it than speed - what, I am not sure.....

honestly, I think Indycar has been a bit "hoity toity" over the years - which suit me fine - I am a bit of a snob myself - but I think it may tend to alienate too many and it also tends to make some think they are really more successful than they truly are (and nobody is all that willing to help someone or something they think is more successful than them)...

Last, but not least, I think there is a bit of an industrial conspiracy against AOWR in general. Both NASCAR and F1 know that IF Indycar ever "got it together" they would have inferior products and Indycar could have them both for lunch.... So, I think there are more than a few in the industry who could cut Indycar some slack that are not doing it and indeed may even be acting in a manner to impede success of Indycar....

Last but not least, Indycar is its own worst enemy. It has been run by a group of people who really do not understand or care about the world too far beyond Indianapolis (or the mid-west anyway) for many many years. Even the CART guys rarely had a true world view (or even a USA wide view)...

Bottom line is that while speed is important, I think it is toward the bottom of the top 10 list of problems with Indycar and in and of itself won't make much difference without fixing other issues too....

No offense but it's like saying that baseball will have soccer for lunch in the world outside North America. :rolleyes:

Chris R

13th December 2011, 15:55

I have maintained there is more to the puzzle than just a track record ...

But I believe it's currently the most important and the first building block ...

Indycar: we've got a new car, it's slower than the old buts it's got a bumper! Is not going to garner even a single set of new eyeballs

you are 100% right - but the old car wouldn't either.... heck, the new champcar being pretty good didn't do them any good either....

My personal opinion is that they need to go radical and go to a front engine (optional but might be favorable with my other ideas), open wheel, aero limited (i.e. - the old "integral to the body" only) 4 wheel drive (allowable) model. They should include a stock "survival cell" that is non structural in nature and standardized. Everything else should be open as long as it fits in a box of a specific size.... To add some security to the series they should probably include penalty weight potential for overly successful cars.... oh,a and to limit power they would have to get a certain gas mileage or some other conversion to limit total energy used during any given race.....

Basically, standardize only a safety cell, let the boys have at it if it fits in the standard box, uses a set amount of energy and no longer includes "wings" or some other serious aero restriction that is beyond me....

THEN, you have a unique product that, whether it is faster or slower, can and will be interesting, exciting and innovative oh, and perhaps even cheap if they do the safety cell right).... THEN you have something to sell and to get excited about... Problem is, if it is a bust the game is over.....

Anyway, Ken, I do agree with your sentiments - it is just that I will be ok if the new car races well , I am more concerned about ugliness of the car than I am about the speed at the moment... I am guessing they will allow more power if needed to address the speed concerns.... you are right though, the new car is NOT going to being any new fans - but really, none of the concepts presented would have done it either.... If they want to grow the sport they need to break the mold and start anew....

Chris R

13th December 2011, 15:59

:D
No offense but it's like saying that baseball will have soccer for lunch in the world outside North America. :rolleyes:

fair enough - my comments were definitely from a xenophobic american point of view ;)

and to a limited extent, the expanding markets care no more (or less) about F-1 than Indycar - theoretically if you send a great Indycar market to the Pacific Rim, they could easily displace F1..... As far as Europe and the former colonies around the world that are still heavily euro-centric - F1 will always be king

Chris R

13th December 2011, 16:19

No offense but it's like saying that baseball will have soccer for lunch in the world outside North America. :rolleyes:
upon further reflection, it would be more akin to me saying soccor would have baseball for lunch in North America if it ever had an unencumbered opportunity and a good effort.... I do not think baseball is a superior product to soccer/football(in the European sense of the word)...

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 16:21

I'm with ya.....

you are 100% right - but the old car wouldn't either.... heck, the new champcar being pretty good didn't do them any good either....

My personal opinion is that they need to go radical and go to a front engine (optional but might be favorable with my other ideas), open wheel, aero limited (i.e. - the old "integral to the body" only) 4 wheel drive (allowable) model. They should include a stock "survival cell" that is non structural in nature and standardized. Everything else should be open as long as it fits in a box of a specific size.... To add some security to the series they should probably include penalty weight potential for overly successful cars.... oh,a and to limit power they would have to get a certain gas mileage or some other conversion to limit total energy used during any given race.....

Basically, standardize only a safety cell, let the boys have at it if it fits in the standard box, uses a set amount of energy and no longer includes "wings" or some other serious aero restriction that is beyond me....

THEN, you have a unique product that, whether it is faster or slower, can and will be interesting, exciting and innovative oh, and perhaps even cheap if they do the safety cell right).... THEN you have something to sell and to get excited about... Problem is, if it is a bust the game is over.....

Anyway, Ken, I do agree with your sentiments - it is just that I will be ok if the new car races well , I am more concerned about ugliness of the car than I am about the speed at the moment... I am guessing they will allow more power if needed to address the speed concerns.... you are right though, the new car is NOT going to being any new fans - but really, none of the concepts presented would have done it either.... If they want to grow the sport they need to break the mold and start anew....

garyshell

13th December 2011, 16:37

Competitive it subjective ... Look no further than the IRL putting up a string on close finishes and still seeing declines in attendance and ratings ..

Close finishes and competitive racing are not the same thing at all. Close finishes are the result of the non-competitive 100% throttle "racing" we have right now.

Gary

garyshell

13th December 2011, 16:38

Your definition is subjective

And your's is not???

Gary

garyshell

13th December 2011, 16:43

as for the speed thing, when was the last time NASCAR had "a new track record" at an "old" track??

NASCAR currently has a fan base and a working biz model...Indycar doesn't

Wait a second, on one hand you are saying that a requirement for a series to have a fan base is for it to continuously produce higher and higher speeds, and yet in the next breath you say that NASCAR which hasn't produced a "new track record" has said fan base.

Gary

Chris R

13th December 2011, 17:02

Close finishes and competitive racing are not the same thing at all. Close finishes are the result of the non-competitive 100% throttle "racing" we have right now.

Gary

i don't know Gary, the IRL/Indycar has been producing some pretty competitive racing and not just 100% throttle racing- I would say any given race is at least as exciting as anything the competition has to offer (not to say there are not duds - but F1 and NASCAR have some real snoozefests also).

The big thing Indycar has a problem with is the length of the caution periods - and the number of cautions. They drive around at 50 mph for 5 laps on a street course and anyone will lose interest.....

Lee Roy

13th December 2011, 17:07

Gary has a point. Some of the most interesting and competitive racing around is SCCA Formula V and Spec Miata. They are not the fastest classes out there by quite a bit, but they sure do put on interesting and exciting races. Getting real racing between cars and not flat all the way around is half the battle. Once we have that we can work on the pure speed part.

I agree. I went to my first Indy Car race at Nazareth in 1995. What I was most impressed with was how much ground a following car could make up on the car ahead on the straight if the following driver got the corner right. Momentum racing is just not interesting to me. You may as well be rolling a bunch of marbles around in a bowl.

And for what it's worth, I don't watch NASCAR "momentum" races either. It's been years since I've watched the races from Daytona and Talladega . . . . . and my whole year used to revolve around the Daytona 500.

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 17:23

And your's is not???

Gary

What's subjective about a new track record?

Seriously Gary pay attention.... I'm saying the sport is in the dumper and the new car solves nothing.... It will garner not a single new viewer or attendee

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 17:25

Wait a second, on one hand you are saying that a requirement for a series to have a fan base is for it to continuously produce higher and higher speeds, and yet in the next breath you say that NASCAR which hasn't produced a "new track record" has said fan base.

Gary

Ken: black
Gary: white

Ken: up
Gary: down

Your being silly...

garyshell

13th December 2011, 21:47

Close finishes out of pack, foot to the floor 100% of the time, racing is neither exciting or interesting. Real competition where the winner earned the victory instead of who got the best draft in the last lap and a half will help attract old fans back and earn new ones.

The new car's speed seems to be problematical at best, so that is something that won't get solved this year. Speed alone is not the answer. Look at the old CanAm. Those were the fastest (non drag) racing cars around. Faster than F1. Didn't help. You need the whole package and not just one part.

Your definition is subjective

And your's is not???

What's subjective about a new track record?

Seriously Gary pay attention.... I'm saying the sport is in the dumper and the new car solves nothing.... It will garner not a single new viewer or attendee

I am paying attention. And you? Who said a new track record was subjective? Starter and I are saying track records are not the definition of competiton. I am saying your using it to define what is needed to improve the sport is HIGHLY subjective. I really don't think it matters one bit. I think there are much more important things to entice the fans. Records is not one of them.

Gary

garyshell

13th December 2011, 21:49

Your being silly...

If your definition of "silly" is calling out fallacies in your logic, then I am guilty as charged.

Gary

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 21:49

How slow do I needto type

garyshell

13th December 2011, 21:51

How slow do I needto type

Oh, I don't know, maybe slow enough that you actually hit all the intended keys.

Gary

SarahFan

13th December 2011, 22:43

* just shaking my head and walking away

SarahFan

14th December 2011, 00:09

Point is that completive racing real passing won't garner a single new eyeball... Look no further than your spec miata series..

You have to I've them reason to tune (back) in

Chris R

14th December 2011, 00:29

They just are not going to tune back in until we give up worrying about/trying to get them to tune in.... My fault with the new car and the philosophy behind it is that it tries to recapture the past, which it cannot do (as Ken point's out - it is too slow etc.). What the new car CAN do (as Gary and Starter seem to think) is improve the racing (which is not nearly as bad a many seem to think). Improved racing is a god step toward building a better long term fan base - but it will not happen very quickly.....

call_me_andrew

14th December 2011, 03:10

as for the speed thing, when was the last time NASCAR had "a new track record" at an "old" track??

Sprint Cup broke its track record at Watkins Glen last August. Most of the track records for oval tracks seem to date between 2004-2006. For context, that was with soft tires and small spoilers.

Maven away!

anthonyvop

14th December 2011, 13:50

Dallara gets a makeover.

Modest improvements were made at Homestead through the use of lightened gearbox parts, but the biggest shift forward in weight distribution came with the addition of ballast to the front of the cars.

Although the parties involved with the Homestead test reported those changes went at least halfway to cure the DW12’s sizeable oversteer on corner entry and understeer on corner exit, Dallara has agreed to produce all-new suspension for the car to further mitigate its balance problems.

AUTO RACING - INDYCAR: Dallara Commits To DW12 Updates (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-dallara-commits-to-dw12-updates/)

SarahFan

14th December 2011, 13:50

Had we heard the new car ran an unofficial 243 at fontana is there anyone that wouldn't be feeling a bit more optomistic about 2012 right about now?

Instead we have uncertainty about the new car.... No schedule....and current scuttlebutt is izod can void the title sponsorship contract if we don't get to 16 races...... Can you say track rentals

Marbles

15th December 2011, 14:01

As a race fan I tune into to watch competitive racing. I don't tune in because the cars are running 5 MPH faster than they were last year and I don't tune out because they are running 5 MPH slower than they were last year... regardless of the tier.

I think what Indycar needs most of all for a broader audience is personality and serious competition will not only attract that; it will create it.

As for the retuning of the new car (which appears to be certainly necessary) I'm becoming concerned that the drivers have become accustom to, and perhaps spoiled, by the old Dallara. Are they going to dial in the new car until it drives "foot to the floor and on rails" on ovals?

P.S. That recent exchange between Garyshell and Sarahfan made my day. Thanks guys.

SarahFan

15th December 2011, 14:42

^you make my point.... Your already a fan, your already watching

FIAT1

15th December 2011, 16:58

Keep the faith!!! As much new car needs to improve and with future development it will, at a same time will show who is a real race car driver and who is there for Sunday drive, will be interesting thats for sure. I'm looking forward to testing and new season to start. In meantime let's go skiing! love that speed!

garyshell

15th December 2011, 20:22

SarahFan

15th December 2011, 21:38

garyshell

15th December 2011, 22:02

SarahFan

15th December 2011, 22:34

Why not just roll out the indylights cars than?

Or f@&k it let's run the spec miattas

garyshell

15th December 2011, 23:36

Why not just roll out the indylights cars than?

Or f@&k it let's run the spec miattas

So the only solution is "A neeeeeew traaaaaaaack record"? Remind me again how many folks attend qualifying at Indy and oh, let's say as an example Texas, or for road courses, Edmonton or Toronto? And how many folks watch those on TV? Explain please how catering to them will draw more folks to the race? BTW sponsors and race promoters could care less about qualifying. They only tolerate that day of the event so they can put on the real show, the race.

But my real question is what ELSE besides a "new track record" needs to be done? Surely you have some other idea?

Gary

SarahFan

16th December 2011, 00:04

Again Gary you fail to pay attention and follow along

Ken: grey
Gary: huh

DBell

16th December 2011, 02:01

So the only solution is "A neeeeeew traaaaaaaack record"? Remind me again how many folks attend qualifying at Indy and oh, let's say as an example Texas, or for road courses, Edmonton or Toronto? And how many folks watch those on TV? Explain please how catering to them will draw more folks to the race? BTW sponsors and race promoters could care less about qualifying. They only tolerate that day of the event so they can put on the real show, the race.

But my real question is what ELSE besides a "new track record" needs to be done? Surely you have some other idea?

Gary

Indy used to draw big crowds for pole day. Yes, it was before the split, but it was also in the days of track records. The split was a big factor for the pole day crowds going away, but I think the era of controlled speeds at Indy is also a significant factor. I agree track records at most other tracks would mostly draw notice from hard core fans, but records at Indy would be different,imo.

Loneranger

16th December 2011, 15:50

Gary, you must think Indy Car fans are a real big bunch of idiots!

I am evil Homer

16th December 2011, 16:04

My point Gary is that folks aren't watching... So the league can have the greatest most competitive (completly subjective btw) racing o. The planet it it won't matter unless you give lost and/or news fans a reason to tune in

And "Indycar: we lift in the corners" just ain't it

So competitive racing isn't a reason to watch motorsport? With cars that require driver input to make them go faster than their competitors?

I used to watch Indycars back in the days of Moore, Montoya etc. sure the cars were, ultimately, fast but they also required a hell of a lot of skill to control them. A lot of that seems to have been lost, so it needs a re-boot. If that means slightly slower (in absolute terms) cars but ones that will sort out the good drivers from the bad it could create a buzz around the series.

Buzz = marketability. That means sponsors find it attractive.

Your average punter that we're talking about here (ie the ones that don't currently tune in) won't have a clue, visually if the car is doing 190 or 215.

Mind you all of this assumes a new car will change anything when in reality, the PR, promotion and running of the entire thing needs an overhaul.

SarahFan

16th December 2011, 16:18

Competitive racing would be a reason to CONTINUE watching ....

I've been very very clear about this

Over and over

Loneranger

16th December 2011, 16:25

So competitive racing isn't a reason to watch motorsport? With cars that require driver input to make them go faster than their competitors?

I used to watch Indycars back in the days of Moore, Montoya etc. sure the cars were, ultimately, fast but they also required a hell of a lot of skill to control them. A lot of that seems to have been lost, so it needs a re-boot. If that means slightly slower (in absolute terms) cars but ones that will sort out the good drivers from the bad it could create a buzz around the series.

Buzz = marketability. That means sponsors find it attractive.

Your average punter that we're talking about here (ie the ones that don't currently tune in) won't have a clue, visually if the car is doing 190 or 215.

Mind you all of this assumes a new car will change anything when in reality, the PR, promotion and running of the entire thing needs an overhaul.

Did you ride the short bus? Are you reading what you are writing? That makes absolutely no sense. Could be one of the most moronic posts I have read in a real long time.

Yah, lets slow the cars down to a snails pace! Brilliant!!! What do you think will happen when you dial back the capabilities of the car? You end up with cars that will all be going the identical speed. We need disparity right now more then ever and you are proposing the exact opposite. Slowing the cars down will give you the entire opposite affect of what it is you desire which is so called competitive racing.

garyshell

16th December 2011, 17:34

Gary, you must think Indy Car fans are a real big bunch of idiots!

Hardly! I think they want competitive racing and not the gimmick of a "new track record" that is seen by only a mall percentage of the fans that go to the race or view on TV.

Gary

garyshell

16th December 2011, 17:42

Did you ride the short bus? Are you reading what you are writing? That makes absolutely no sense. Could be one of the most moronic posts I have read in a real long time.

Yah, lets slow the cars down to a snails pace! Brilliant!!! What do you think will happen when you dial back the capabilities of the car? You end up with cars that will all be going the identical speed. We need disparity right now more then ever and you are proposing the exact opposite. Slowing the cars down will give you the entire opposite affect of what it is you desire which is so called competitive racing.

Really classy repsonse, caling people and their replies moronic. Removing downforce and adding horsepower thereby forcing the drivers to have to lift would have two effects. First it would create disparity and second it would slow down the lap times. Sure if the ONLY thing being proposed was to slow the car down you would be correct. But that is NOT what is being proposed at all. What is being proposed are changes to bring about some much needed disparity that have a side effcet of also slowing down lap times.

Gary

garyshell

16th December 2011, 17:46

Competitive racing would be a reason to CONTINUE watching ....

I've been very very clear about this

Over and over

And a "new lap record" would be a reason to tune in on Saturday before the race? Really? Have you ever watched qualifying. It is BORING on TV, akin to watching paint dry. Sorry I just don't believe that you are going to get new fans by having them watch qualifying.

Gary

Loneranger

16th December 2011, 18:02

Really classy repsonse, caling people and their replies moronic. Removing downforce and adding horsepower thereby forcing the drivers to have to lift would have two effects. First it would create disparity and second it would slow down the lap times. Sure if the ONLY thing being proposed was to slow the car down you would be correct. But that is NOT what is being proposed at all. What is being proposed are changes to bring about some much needed disparity that have a side effcet of also slowing down lap times.

Gary

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a black tie affair. Suck it up buttercup! I am evil homer can fight his own battles, he doesn't need any broke back help.

You aren't going to have any sort of disparity Gary by purposefully slowing the car down. For the most part these guys are all professional drivers, they get the maximum out of the car. You will end up with 20 cars running identical times. It all ready happens! Slow them down even more and you will only exasperate the problem.

Lost on you is the fact that it isn't about proclaiming a "new track record" it is about representing the pinnacle of the sport, and speed is one of the few measuring sticks motorsports has in doing do.

SarahFan

16th December 2011, 18:29

What's the opposite of Purple?

fan-veteran

16th December 2011, 20:41

But there is not much room left for " new lap record". Adding extra horsepower may launch lap speed in Indy above 240mph, but this will last only for a few years. And what next, 245 mph, than 250mph, all this in a period of 10-15 years? :confused: The safety limits of speed (in Indy) even with SAFER barriers are somewhat empirically established - no more than 230mph at corners.

But well, lets do some pure mathematics. If we assume cornering speed to be around 225mph (and we may control this as a spec-chassis series with of course spec-aerodynamics) as it is now, we need top speed to be about 250mph in order to achieve average 240mph which turns to be "new lap record". Such top speed in such a wide and smooth road as IMS i think is purely acceptable, even 260mph is acceptable (which by the way should increase average to about 245mph). I see the problem with mistakes (or even technical failures) while breaking/lowering the speed entering the corner.

SarahFan

16th December 2011, 20:43

Obviously you Gary and a few others disagree .... Yet every year the series takes another step backwards ..... It's stuck in1997

SarahFan

16th December 2011, 20:46

Why not just run the Indy lights?

Loneranger

16th December 2011, 21:16

Loneranger

16th December 2011, 21:33

Ken, I stand corrected. A new lap record is exactly what we need. The pure speed will attract droves of new fans and bring old ones back.

That is why the telecasts from Bonneville are on in prime time with sponsors fighting each other to buy air time and viewership ratings well up in double digits.

It's not the point of attaining a lap record its what a lap record represents!!! Why do you guys not understand that???

There is one thing and one thing only that separates each category through the ladders in any series throughout the world, whether it is USF2000 to Mazda to Lights to Indy Car or Formula Renault, F3, GP2, F1, one thing only that separates and differentiates each rung to the next and that is SPEED!

And you freaking guys want to sit there and say no, no, no, lets slow them down, big speed, top speed matters nothing.

BS!!! It is everything. Every-freaking-thing.

Otherwise, eliminate Indy Car all together and just run Indy Lights. If it is all about competitive racing, and if fans are to stupid to differentiate 215 and 230, run lights, abolish Indy Car, it solves everything.

Starter, Gary, anybody else that rides the same bus, why not just do that? Why isn't Indy Lights more popular?

Loneranger

16th December 2011, 22:07

elan 02

17th December 2011, 02:18

In 2000 Gil de ferran drove Fontanas oval at 241.426 a world speed record for a closed course. They need to break that record. If not why race
Ask Craig Breedlove,Ask Barry Bonds, Ask Joe Montana. If there was a new track record you guys would not stop talking about it. Go Loneranger
GO

jimispeed

17th December 2011, 04:02

Here you go folks!!

2012 Dallara's arrive on main street in Speedway | indystar.com | Indianapolis Sports | The Indianapolis Star (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=BG&Dato=20111214&Kategori=SPORTS&Lopenr=112140810&Ref=PH)

Now, let's hope the fixes to this chassis are a whole lot better than polishing a turd!!

garyshell

17th December 2011, 05:25

You aren't going to have any sort of disparity Gary by purposefully slowing the car down. For the most part these guys are all professional drivers, they get the maximum out of the car. You will end up with 20 cars running identical times. It all ready happens! Slow them down even more and you will only exasperate the problem.

Lost on you is the fact that it isn't about proclaiming a "new track record" it is about representing the pinnacle of the sport, and speed is one of the few measuring sticks motorsports has in doing do.

Who said ANYTHING about "purposefully slowing the car down"? What has been called for be me and in case you hadn't noticed MANY of the drivers in the series is to take away the 100% throttle "racing". And how are they suggesting that be done? By increasing horsepower and decreasing downforce. If a side effect of that is the cars are slower, who gives a rats ass. If raw speed is YOUR measuring stick go watch drag racing or go to Bonneville (and take your snide homophobic remarks with you). The measure of this form of racing is on track competition.

Gary

garyshell

17th December 2011, 05:34

Hey Gary.........Gary, Gary, Gary.....why did Penske waste all his time and resources year after year developing new chassis'? Why did Lola? Why did March? Why did Swift? Why did Reynard?

Why did Cosworth waste millions and millions of dollars year after year developing new engines? Why did Honda? Toyota? Judd? Porsche? General Motors? Ford?

Oh man this is just too easy. They all did it for one reason, to beat the competition and win a championship. It sure as hell wasn't to set a "neeeeeeeeew laaaaaaap record". In case you hadn't noticed there is no racing series that awards a championship to the car with the fastest speed, not even the NHRA. Oh wait, I'm sorry there are two, both run at Bonneville. Those are the SCTA and USFRA.

Gary

garyshell

17th December 2011, 05:37

Boundaries need to continually be pushed as the threshold is found. That may require many changes over the years from car design to track design, but to maintain the interest of the fans the envelope needs to continually be pushed or lose interest.

Guess what? Fans have lost interest!

Really, at what cost of finding that threshold. A car in the stands? When was the last time NASCAR broke a track record? Until the economy caught up with them they weren't having too much trouble finding fans.

Gary

garyshell

17th December 2011, 05:41

It's not the point of attaining a lap record its what a lap record represents!!!

If the point of a lap record is not attaining a lap record then what DOES it represent? Once again if you think the only thing that matters is top speed, go to the Salt Flats.

Gary

SarahFan

17th December 2011, 05:45

And what constitutes 'competitive' is purely subjective ... What you call 'pack Racing' produced a string of the closest finishes in racing history and wad lauded by the original irelians and the greatest raving on the planet ...

Yet the sport is on deaths door

New and lost fans and Mai stream media won't give a damn until the sport becomes relevant again ... And that starts with speed .... And a new track record at the speedway IMO

The sport is stuck in 1997

fan-veteran

17th December 2011, 15:45

What I have said is that even though the new car seems to be flawed from the original concept it is not necessarily the end of the world.
Yes, without sarcasm really, something like the "new" cars for 1997 season - slow, but it was not the end.

I want to see cars that are faster on the straights and slower in the turns (ie: harder to drive) and this might or might not result in "A New Lap Record"
Me too. I had already written about that. Even without new lap records above 240mph.

Pack racing is wonderful in FV and some other places, but has no place at the top rung of American racing - whether IndyCar or NASCAR.
But ... the geometry of 1.5 mile high banking ovals (more than 20deg of banking) today allows flatout laps even with very little downforce. Those ovals were simply designed for "pack racing".

Loneranger

17th December 2011, 16:06

If the point of a lap record is not attaining a lap record then what DOES it represent? Once again if you think the only thing that matters is top speed, go to the Salt Flats.

Gary

THE PINNACLE!!! That is what it represents. Do you not understand that the current Dallara, or the DW12 are not only measured against other cars around the world, they are also measured against all those cars that are sitting in that museum at 16th and Georgetown.

The point of a lap record is a tangible piece of evidence that the boundaries are being pushed. I don't care if the lap records come at Indy, Long Beach or Toronto! The lap record represents progress.

Loneranger

17th December 2011, 16:11

I have never advocated slowing the cars down. They should go as fast as the engineers & drivers can make them go. What I have said is that even though the new car seems to be flawed from the original concept it is not necessarily the end of the world. There are other ingredients just as important in the overall package. I want to see cars that are faster on the straights and slower in the turns (ie: harder to drive) and this might or might not result in "A New Lap Record". I want to see cars that you or I couldn't, with some practice, get in and make the field. I want to see races that are decided by who is the better driver & team and not who got the last draft. Pack racing is wonderful in FV and some other places, but has no place at the top rung of American racing - whether IndyCar or NASCAR. And the new car is, IMO, a step in the right direction. I do not believe it is the end point, but as I said earlier, the financial realities being what they are it's what we've got for now and all the complaining in the world isn't going to change THAT fact.

I'm not dismissing any of that. Harder to drive cars though come from faster cars plain and simple. Otherwise all you are doing is artificially making them more difficult to drive and if that is the case we can just go the F1 route and mandate that the tire supplier make a tire that degrades quickly. But that doesn't solve the underlying problem which is that fans want to see the best drivers in the world racing the fastest baddest assed cars in the world.

The DW12 is far from that. Not even close. It's uninspiring, its boring, it's evidently SLOW, it solves nothing. But Gary seems to think it will be more driveable so that should solve all Indy Cars problems! Yippee.

Loneranger

17th December 2011, 16:14

Oh man this is just too easy. They all did it for one reason, to beat the competition and win a championship. It sure as hell wasn't to set a "neeeeeeeeew laaaaaaap record". In case you hadn't noticed there is no racing series that awards a championship to the car with the fastest speed, not even the NHRA. Oh wait, I'm sorry there are two, both run at Bonneville. Those are the SCTA and USFRA.

Gary

How do you beat the competition Gary?

Loneranger

17th December 2011, 16:16

Who said ANYTHING about "purposefully slowing the car down"? What has been called for be me and in case you hadn't noticed MANY of the drivers in the series is to take away the 100% throttle "racing". And how are they suggesting that be done? By increasing horsepower and decreasing downforce. If a side effect of that is the cars are slower, who gives a rats ass. If raw speed is YOUR measuring stick go watch drag racing or go to Bonneville (and take your snide homophobic remarks with you). The measure of this form of racing is on track competition.

Gary

Great! Do it then.

But guess what, that isn't what is being done and you seem to be okay with it.

SarahFan

17th December 2011, 16:19

I agree pretty much 100%

But my point all all along has been none of that is going to entice main stream
Media to step up take notice and heavily report on it?

At the end of the day unless your already a diehard fan (which we all are) you do all you advocate and the sport still will be perceived as stuck in 1997 and not worthy of attention

IMO of coarse... Ymmv..... But ratings attendance rotating schedules pay drivers and second rate sponsors suggest I'm correct
l
I have never advocated slowing the cars down. They should go as fast as the engineers & drivers can make them go. What I have said is that even though the new car seems to be flawed from the original concept it is not necessarily the end of the world. There are other ingredients just as important in the overall package. I want to see cars that are faster on the straights and slower in the turns (ie: harder to drive) and this might or might not result in "A New Lap Record". I want to see cars that you or I couldn't, with some practice, get in and make the field. I want to see races that are decided by who is the better driver & team and not who got the last draft. Pack racing is wonderful in FV and some other places, but has no place at the top rung of American racing - whether IndyCar or NASCAR. And the new car is, IMO, a step in the right direction. I do not believe it is the end point, but as I said earlier, the financial realities being what they are it's what we've got for now and all the complaining in the world isn't going to change THAT fact.

Oli_M

17th December 2011, 18:34

I may have been wrong, but I thought I saw that during the recent tests at ?Mid Ohio? that the new cars matched the pole time from this year? If I can find the article I'll dig it up, unless anyone else remembers seeing this too?

I think that whilst the internet is great for spreading news quickly, which can potentially be great for the sport, it also means that news such as this spreads quickly too. Otherwise we could just be in a position where we know none of the lap times from any of the testing, we watch the first race from St Pete and the pole time is 1.5 seconds quicker than 2011. "Wow, the new car is quick!" would have been everyone's response.

anthonyvop

18th December 2011, 00:20

When was the last time a lap record was broken in F1?

They seem to have no problem growing their series.

call_me_andrew

18th December 2011, 02:50

Not counting the Indian and Korean races, F1's last lap record is from 2009. I blame the lack of in race refueling. Of course I already pointed out when the last Sprint Cup record was set, and I'm going to keep finding records as long as I can give genuine answers to rhetorical questions.

I'd like to point out that the car only has drivability problems on high speed ovals, of which we only have 3. Reminds me of a watch I once had: It bothered me that the watch didn't automatically adjust the date for leap years, but it only bothered me once every 4 years.

Loneranger

18th December 2011, 04:41

Actually it's Silverstone in 2010.

SarahFan

18th December 2011, 04:58

Why not just make the 500 a single weekend event?

garyshell

18th December 2011, 07:31

garyshell

18th December 2011, 07:36

Great! Do it then.

But guess what, that isn't what is being done and you seem to be okay with it.

Who said I was ok with anything? Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. All I said was I couldn't give a rats ass if we ever set another new track record, no more no less. What I do want is to see the end to 100% throttle "racing". If that means the side effect is slower cars, again, I don't give a rats ass.

Gary

garyshell

18th December 2011, 07:37

Actually it's Silverstone in 2010.

And who noticed? Or cared?

Gary

SarahFan

18th December 2011, 15:34

Indycar: we're NOT 100% throttle!

*why some of you advocate dumbing down the sport is beyond me

Loneranger

18th December 2011, 15:41

Indycar: we're NOT 100% throttle!

*why some of you advocate dumbing down the sport is beyond me

That's funny! We should get Gary a tshirt and matching ball cap with that slogan.

Loneranger

18th December 2011, 15:47

And who noticed? Or cared?

Gary
On the surface, nobody.

Dumb down F1 and ask me the same question Gary. Are you actually foolish enough to think slowing down F1 would be good for the sport. Do you think when Bernie falls asleep at night trying to think how to make more millions that one of his solutions is to try and slow the cars down???

For a guy that seems to have such an easy time coming up with simple answers you sure don't sound very smart!!!

Loneranger

18th December 2011, 15:54

Who said I was ok with anything? Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. All I said was I couldn't give a rats ass if we ever set another new track record, no more no less. What I do want is to see the end to 100% throttle "racing". If that means the side effect is slower cars, again, I don't give a rats ass.

Gary

You are the one saying it. Look in the mirror. You are willing to sacrifice speed for cars that you need to lift. What you fail to understand is the solution is both. You need super fast cars that are difficult to drive.

Otherwise just slap on skinnier tires and mandate a certain level of degradation just like Pirelli needs to do in F1. Problem solved. Will that fix anything Gary? They will need to lift, problem solved right.........oh wait WRONG! Or do you agree that is a fix? If your solution is simply to remove full throttle racing, there is a solution. Will it work??? Yes or No???

Loneranger

18th December 2011, 16:17

Actually F1 has been slowed down several times in the last 10 years or so. The whole grooved tire issue was an attempt to slow the cars down. Outlawing qualifying engines. The requirement to have engines last X number of races is an attempt to slow the cars as well as reduce costs. The new engine regs ditto. That the newer rules were overcome by the engineers fairly soon doesn't eliminate what the intent was.
I agree about grooved tires, it was more about limiting the parity though then it was to reduce speeds, the others were about reducing costs not limiting speeds and fans flipped out each time. I remember the grooved tires very vividly, fans around the world were outraged. It also wasn't long before speeds were back up.

I ask the same thing, you think Bernie lays there at night and thinks a good way to make more money is to slow the cars down?

The only time F1 slows down is to try and control the ridiculously high costs of achieving Speed.

Indy Car isn't even trying to do that. They are just trying to come out with a replacement car cause the old one was a dog and long in the tooth. They didn't have any sort of mandate as far as speed was concerned. They just screwed up and made a slower car. They can't even say they tried to purposefully make a slower car. They are just lost out at sea.

garyshell

18th December 2011, 16:36

You are the one saying it. Look in the mirror. You are willing to sacrifice speed for cars that you need to lift. What you fail to understand is the solution is both. You need super fast cars that are difficult to drive.

Otherwise just slap on skinnier tires and mandate a certain level of degradation just like Pirelli needs to do in F1. Problem solved. Will that fix anything Gary? They will need to lift, problem solved right.........oh wait WRONG! Or do you agree that is a fix? If your solution is simply to remove full throttle racing, there is a solution. Will it work??? Yes or No???

Do try to pay attention, I have been very consistent in calling for higher horsepower and less downforce to eliminate the 100% throttle racing.

Gary

garyshell

18th December 2011, 16:38

Indycar: we're NOT 100% throttle!

*why some of you advocate dumbing down the sport is beyond me

That's funny! We should get Gary a tshirt and matching ball cap with that slogan.

So the two of you like 100% throttle racing then? Sorry but that's not racing, its as others have said all about who gets the best draft on the last lap.

Gary

SarahFan

18th December 2011, 16:43

Dumbing down the sport had gotten us to exactly the point were at

fan-veteran

18th December 2011, 18:03

The whole grooved tire issue was an attempt to slow the cars down.
No. ;) This (and many other decisions in F1) have only a political (financial at the bottom) ground. All official statements about slowing down cars, lowering costs are only an eye-wash for the audience. There were of course in the past actual steps for slowing cars (and raising safety) - only after tragic accidents with Senna and Ratzenberger. And some very tiny steps in a period of many years only under the pressure of drivers.

jimispeed

19th December 2011, 08:01

More news...........

AUTO RACING - INDYCAR: New McLaren ECU, Sato, Pagenaud Log Testing Miles At Sebring (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-new-mclaren-ecu-sato-pagenaud-log-testing-miles-at-sebring/)

FIAT1

19th December 2011, 14:00

I have stated before ,it will be interesting and that is good!

Loneranger

19th December 2011, 17:28

Do try to pay attention, I have been very consistent in calling for higher horsepower and less downforce to eliminate the 100% throttle racing.

Gary

YES AND AT THE EXPENSE OF SPEED!

Do try and pay attention........you need them both.

Loneranger

19th December 2011, 17:29

So the two of you like 100% throttle racing then? Sorry but that's not racing, its as others have said all about who gets the best draft on the last lap.

Gary

Do try and pay attention......I hate 100% throttle racing.

Blancvino

20th December 2011, 12:35

"Hey Gary.........Gary, Gary, Gary.....why did Penske waste all his time and resources year after year developing new chassis'? Why did Lola? Why did March? Why did Swift? Why did Reynard?

Why did Cosworth waste millions and millions of dollars year after year developing new engines? Why did Honda? Toyota? Judd? Porsche? General Motors? Ford? "

One word ... competition. If they had no incentive to improve, they would sit on their hands.

jimispeed

20th December 2011, 15:39

More news..........

AUTO RACING - INDYCAR: New McLaren ECU, Sato, Pagenaud Log Testing Miles At Sebring (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-new-mclaren-ecu-sato-pagenaud-log-testing-miles-at-sebring/)

garyshell

20th December 2011, 17:04

YES AND AT THE EXPENSE OF SPEED!

Do try and pay attention........you need them both.

According to YOU. So what is the end game in this eternal quest for speed, an ever escalating "neeeeeeew traaaaaaack record" every year? Or is this a one time "we need it in the first year" sort of thing? If it's the latter, honestly I don't have any real issue. If it's the former, in my mind it's a fool's errand. YMMV.

Gary

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 17:22

According to YOU. So what is the end game in this eternal quest for speed, an ever escalating "neeeeeeew traaaaaaack record" every year? Or is this a one time "we need it in the first year" sort of thing? If it's the latter, honestly I don't have any real issue. If it's the former, in my mind it's a fool's errand. YMMV.

Gary

I find interesting this notion that reducing speed equates to 'dumbing-down'. I would have thought that a series in which outright speed is the be-all and end-all has been comprehensively dumbed-down.

garyshell

20th December 2011, 17:28

I find interesting this notion that reducing speed equates to 'dumbing-down'. I would have thought that a series in which outright speed is the be-all and end-all has been comprehensively dumbed-down.

I am with you 100%, but there are others here who seem to think speed is king.

Gary

SarahFan

20th December 2011, 18:41

Why does Gary ignore the elephant in the room... The question has been repeated a dozen Times now

If speed doesn't matter why not just run the indylights and call it Indycar?

zzatz

20th December 2011, 20:12

If speed doesn't matter why not just run the indylights and call it Indycar?

Speed does matter. It's not the only thing that matters.

NASCAR went down that road long ago, and the lessons apply to all racing. Bill France built Talladega because he wanted higher speeds. He was sure that higher speeds would attract more fans. He was right, that race attracts a huge turnout.

But higher speeds came at a price. It was too dangerous. So NASCAR mandated restrictor plates to reduce power, which of course also reduced speed. The crowds still show up, so maybe speed isn't the most important factor.

I find that race boring. I'm not alone. Pack racing sucks. The teams and drivers hate it.

NASCAR's solution - reducing power - is the wrong approach. Racing suffers any time that you can complete a lap without ever lifting the throttle. A better solution for Talladega, and for Las Vegas, is to reduce the banking. Lift entering the turns, accelerate coming out. Driver skill becomes more important. You can still have high speeds down the straights. Speed does matter, but it's not the only thing, and perhaps not even the most important thing. Passing is more important. Driver skill is more important.

I like fast cars. But placing speed above everything else leads to boring, dangerous, pack racing that allows mediocre drivers to win because luck counts more than skill. New track records may get headlines, but it's one on one battles for position that keep fans coming back for more.

SarahFan

20th December 2011, 20:51

Zzats...

This series desperatly needs the headlines right now

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 21:05

Zzats...

This series desperatly needs the headlines right now

Like I said, 'dumbing-down'.

SarahFan

20th December 2011, 21:08

The series has had the same car for a decade and the roll out a slower one

That's dumbing down

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 21:36

The series has had the same car for a decade and the roll out a slower one

That's dumbing down

No it isn't. Doing something just to get into the headlines is an example of 'dumbing down'. What you describe isn't. I suggest you go and watch drag racing if literally all that matters to you is outright speed.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 21:37

The series has had the same car for a decade and the roll out a slower one

It baffles me how anybody in their right mind thinks that is a good strategy. From the top, right on down to Garyshell, how the hell anybody thinks replacing a dog of a car with an even slower one is somehow going to fix things is just beyond comprehension. It's simply moronic! I don't care if it looks cooler, if its less expensive, if its racier, if it shoots fireworks out the tail pipes, how on earth can anybody think that a car that's known as and legacy will be that of a CRAPWAGON, thinks that a car that is slower is going to be miraculously better for everybody.........................here's your sign!!!

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 21:39

If it's the latter, honestly I don't have any real issue. If it's the former, in my mind it's a fool's errand.

Gary

What was it you said.....oh ya......according to YOU!

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 21:39

What shallow fans US open-wheel racing seems to have attracted.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 21:46

So what is the end game in this eternal quest for speed, an ever escalating "neeeeeeew traaaaaaack record" every year? Or is this a one time "we need it in the first year" sort of thing? If it's the latter, honestly I don't have any real issue. If it's the former, in my mind it's a fool's errand. YMMV.

Gary

It was you that said this:

Oh man this is just too easy. They all did it for one reason, to beat the competition and win a championship. It sure as hell wasn't to set a "neeeeeeeeew laaaaaaap record". In case you hadn't noticed there is no racing series that awards a championship to the car with the fastest speed, not even the NHRA. Oh wait, I'm sorry there are two, both run at Bonneville. Those are the SCTA and USFRA.

Gary

In an attempt to beat the competition, year after year they were required to GO FASTER!!! So yes, in the eternal quest for speed, you should see cars continuously breaking records, maybe not year after year, but much more frequently than what we now see.

You are simply hung up on the thought that we want to hear a bloody track announcer on a speaker announcing a new record.

I could give a rats arse about "hearing" of any new track record. I care about what a track record represents, which is as you put it the eternal quest for speed, in an effort to try and WIN! That concept seems entirely lost on you though.

Is it lost on you Gary? Do you not get that? Do you not understand? Has the point not been put across well enough or are you purposefully avoiding the point of the argument.

Otherwise, like Ken said, why not just race Indy Lights and kill off Indy Car? Can you answer that? No, I don't think you can....I don't think you will, and I don't think you have the nads to address that point.

SarahFan

20th December 2011, 21:47

No it isn't. Doing something just to get into the headlines is an example of 'dumbing down'. What you describe isn't. I suggest you go and watch drag racing if literally all that matters to you is outright speed.

I haven't even remotely suggested that.... Please pay attention

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 21:49

I suggest you go and watch drag racing if literally all that matters to you is outright speed.

Why do you think all that Sarahfan is concerned with is outright speed? You don't understand the point of view.

I think in the name of safety we should slow down the Touring cars. That oughtta make for more interesting racing don't you think?

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 21:51

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 21:51

I haven't even remotely suggested that.... Please pay attention

'This series desperatly needs the headlines right now'. What other interpretation is there to those words?

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 21:52

Why do you think all that Sarahfan is concerned with is outright speed? You don't understand the point of view.

Perhaps not, because I enjoy motor racing for the racing, not, in themselves, the speeds. Increasing speed is not, I have to tell you, the only measure of progress.

Lee Roy

20th December 2011, 22:02

I was listening to Allan McNish talking about Le Mans recently, and he made the point that while it was disappointing as a driver when speeds were reduced, he recognised that they simply could not go on rising exponentially for the simple reason that there is a point beyond which those speeds become unsafe. If only all held such enlightened attitudes.

Bingo. What seems to be mostly forgotten, or completely ignored, in this discussion is that even with advances in safety equipment (SAFER and HANS for example), the human body can not be re-designed to survive more and more severe impacts caused by increasing speed.

garyshell

20th December 2011, 22:13

In an attempt to beat the competition, year after year they were required to GO FASTER!!! So yes, in the eternal quest for speed, you should see cars continuously breaking records, maybe not year after year, but much more frequently than what we now see.

And where does that end? Does it end when we reach a specific speed, does it end when the cars are unsafe? Does it end when the cars are too fast for particular tracks? What is the end game? (Note I am avoiding the hyperbole of asking if we have to wait till someone is killed. But in reality THAT is the REAL elephant in the room.)

You are simply hung up on the thought that we want to hear a bloody track announcer on a speaker announcing a new record.

I could give a rats arse about "hearing" of any new track record. I care about what a track record represents, which is as you put it the eternal quest for speed, in an effort to try and WIN! That concept seems entirely lost on you though.

Is it lost on you Gary? Do you not get that? Do you not understand? Has the point not been put across well enough or are you purposefully avoiding the point of the argument.

No it is not lost on me at all. I just think it's a ridiculous notion, plain and simple as that. I've never avoided the argument at all. I have said I think its STUPID. I think chasing track records or what they represent is STUPID. Is that lost on you? Track records (or what they represent, are not required to win Championships. I take note of the fact that you and Ken offered no further explanation when I said a few days ago that the reason "why did Penske waste all his time and resources year after year developing new chassis'? Why did Lola? Why did March? Why did Swift? Why did Reynard?" was to win championships and not to set track records or to even go faster than they did the year before.

Otherwise, like Ken said, why not just race Indy Lights and kill off Indy Car? Can you answer that? No, I don't think you can....I don't think you will, and I don't think you have the nads to address that point.

What a specious argument. It doesn't take "nads" to dismiss it as a silly attempt to divert the conversation, but I'll indulge your little game. There is a very valid reason for Indy Lights to be separate and distinct from the main series, namely to provide a training and proving ground for up and coming racers. But you already knew that.

Gary

garyshell

20th December 2011, 22:19

If it's the latter, honestly I don't have any real issue. If it's the former, in my mind it's a fool's errand. YMMV.

What was it you said.....oh ya......according to YOU!

Which part of "in my mind" didn't you understand? I never said it was anything other than my opinion, unlike some other folks here who seem to think THEY are the only ones who might be correct.

Gary

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:20

I was listening to Allan McNish talking about Le Mans recently, and he made the point that while it was disappointing as a driver when speeds were reduced,

That addresses everything right there!!!

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:21

That addresses everything right there!!!

What says rather more is your utterly, blatantly, selective quoting.

And for whose benefit is a racing series staged?

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:23

'This series desperatly needs the headlines right now'. What other interpretation is there to those words?

That it needs some positive free press!!!

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:25

What says rather more is your utterly, blatantly, selective quoting.

And for whose benefit is a racing series staged?

Don't blame me if you can't argue.

Alan McNish, a world class championship driver, he himself is disappointed when cars are slowed.

Imagine how the fans must feel.

But nah, you are right, slowing them down is an exciting, awe inspiring, imagination catcher.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:25

That it needs some positive free press!!!

In my book, quick attempts at headline-grabbing generally equate to 'dumbing-down'.

garyshell

20th December 2011, 22:25

I find this obsession with speed and records baffling. Why does it matter? The racing is what counts, surely? I was listening to Allan McNish talking about Le Mans recently, and he made the point that while it was disappointing as a driver when speeds were reduced

That addresses everything right there!!!

Now isn't that just special, terminating the quote to make it appear as if the statement supported your view, when in reality if the entire quote (provided below) is read, it does no such thing. Priceless.

I find this obsession with speed and records baffling. Why does it matter? The racing is what counts, surely? I was listening to Allan McNish talking about Le Mans recently, and he made the point that while it was disappointing as a driver when speeds were reduced, he recognised that they simply could not go on rising exponentially for the simple reason that there is a point beyond which those speeds become unsafe. If only all held such enlightened attitudes.

Gary

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:27

Don't blame me if you can't argue.

Alan McNish, a world class championship driver, he himself is disappointed when cars are slowed.

Imagine how the fans must feel.

But nah, you are right, slowing them down is an exciting, awe inspiring, imagination catcher.

'The fans'? You speak of them as though they are all united in one point of view. Quite arrogant.

Like I said, there is a certain shallowness coming through here in the view that outright speed is everything. Yes, it is impressive, but, as Allan McNish went on to say if you can bring yourself to read the rest of what I posted, continued increases are also unsustainable in safety terms. This is the more important point, one that you and others seem desperate to ignore.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:28

Perhaps not, because I enjoy motor racing for the racing, not, in themselves, the speeds. Increasing speed is not, I have to tell you, the only measure of progress.

If the drivers have gotten all so good driving at the current speeds, then you would have to agree the racing sucks! Qualifying times for arguments sake are identical. IDENTICAL. The racers are so freaking identical that Indy Car needed to mandate a new rule FORCING drivers to leave the inside lane wide open because the drivers are driving all so identically that it is impossible to pass conventionally.

So if you love the "racing" so much, the only way to get back to that is increasing the speeds and pushing the boundaries. The only way to know if those boundaries are being pushed is to measure those times against previous ones and if you aren't going faster then obviously you aren't pushing those boundaries!!!

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:30

Bingo. What seems to be mostly forgotten, or completely ignored, in this discussion is that even with advances in safety equipment (SAFER and HANS for example), the human body can not be re-designed to survive more and more severe impacts caused by increasing speed.

Then guess what......more and more drivers will die.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:31

Then guess what......more and more drivers will die.

And this doesn't trouble you?

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:38

And where does that end? Does it end when we reach a specific speed, does it end when the cars are unsafe? Does it end when the cars are too fast for particular tracks? What is the end game? (Note I am avoiding the hyperbole of asking if we have to wait till someone is killed. But in reality THAT is the REAL elephant in the room.)

What you fail to comprehend is we are NOW AT THE END GAME!!! And millions of fans have walked away from the sport.

There is no elephant in the room.

Ironically safety has killed this sport!!!

What a specious argument. It doesn't take "nads" to dismiss it as a silly attempt to divert the conversation, but I'll indulge your little game. There is a very valid reason for Indy Lights to be separate and distinct from the main series, namely to provide a training and proving ground for up and coming racers. But you already knew that.

Gary

Holy !@#$%, that was a nice dodge if I ever saw it. I didn't ask why it should be a seperate and distinct series, I asked why not just eliminate Indy Car and focus entirely on Indy Lights. I guess you don't have the nads. It's a simple question. If speed isn't everything, there should be a very simple case to be made for eliminating the big cars, you know.....THE FASTER ONES, and simply racing the slower ones or the ones known as Indy Lights.

Come on Gary address it instead of avoiding and dancing around it. Mt freaking grandmother has better moves then your tiny two step.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:44

'The fans'? You speak of them as though they are all united in one point of view. Quite arrogant.

Ya, they are all united in one point of view, millions of them have walked away from the sport because they no longer have an interest in it! So yes, fans, by the millions are very united. They have unequivocally made a statement that they aren't buying.

Is that arrogant? Is .1 ratings arrogance? I hardly think so.

Like I said, there is a certain shallowness coming through here in the view that outright speed is everything. Yes, it is impressive, but, as Allan McNish went on to say if you can bring yourself to read the rest of what I posted, continued increases are also unsustainable in safety terms. This is the more important point, one that you and others seem desperate to ignore.

You seem desperate to ignore that nobody is watching Indy Car any longer!!! You also ignored the notion of slowing down the touring cars. You also are changing the conversation now into a safety issue. You are diverting the conversation from this being about fans wanting to see fast speeds or good racing to it being about safety controlling the speeds.

Which is it so I can keep on track? Have you given up on the one angle? Maybe you don't want to have to answer the Indy Lights question either. :D

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:44

What you fail to comprehend is we are NOW AT THE END GAME!!! And millions of fans have walked away from the sport.

There is no elephant in the room.

Ironically safety has killed this sport!!!

Holy !@#$%, that was a nice dodge if I ever saw it. I didn't ask why it should be a seperate and distinct series, I asked why not just eliminate Indy Car and focus entirely on Indy Lights. I guess you don't have the nads. It's a simple question. If speed isn't everything, there should be a very simple case to be made for eliminating the big cars, you know.....THE FASTER ONES, and simply racing the slower ones or the ones known as Indy Lights.

Come on Gary address it instead of avoiding and dancing around it. Mt freaking grandmother has better moves then your tiny two step.

Your arguments lack any sense of depth. No-one is arguing in favour of the replacement of IndyCars as we know them with Indy Lights. That would be too drastic a step. But what is wrong with a small speed reduction? This would in no way eliminate a sense of competition, or efforts at technical advance. Formula One didn't die when the 1.5-litre formula was adopted in 1961.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:45

And this doesn't trouble you?

Should it?

Should I be concerned that a boxer might get knocked out in a fight?

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:45

You also are changing the conversation now into a safety issue.

Is this not quite central to the whole thing, though? You seem entirely unconcerned about more drivers dying, so long as the speeds go on increasing.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:47

Should it?

Should I be concerned that a boxer might get knocked out in a fight?

No true enthusiast of any sport should ever want to see any of the protagonists being injured or killed.

I am beginning to think that my earlier comment about American open-wheel racing attracting a shallow brand of fan was too mild.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:47

Your arguments lack any sense of depth. No-one is arguing in favour of the replacement of IndyCars as we know them with Indy Lights. That would be too drastic a step. But what is wrong with a small speed reduction? This would in no way eliminate a sense of competition, or efforts at technical advance. Formula One didn't die when the 1.5-litre formula was adopted in 1961.

.1

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:49

No true enthusiast of any sport should ever want to see any of the protagonists being injured or killed.

I am beginning to think that my earlier comment about American open-wheel racing attracting a shallow brand of fan was too mild.

Why do you guys always make this leap. Show me where I said I want to see people injured or killed. I said I am okay with it. BIG difference.

I didn't want to see Dan killed. I'm perfectly okay with it though.

Let me guess, your only real next response is......go tell that to his wife. Thought so.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:52

Is this not quite central to the whole thing, though? You seem entirely unconcerned about more drivers dying, so long as the speeds go on increasing.

If you want good racing, you need to push the limits of what is achievable, otherwise everybody can do it. If you want to push those limits inevitably, you are going to dance with the devil pushing those boundaries.

I'm okay with that. Apparently you are not.

Right now, safety is driving this sport, when at one time it was innovation that drove it.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:56

Why do you guys always make this leap. Show me where I said I want to see people injured or killed. I said I am okay with it. BIG difference.

I didn't want to see Dan killed. I'm perfectly okay with it though.

Let me guess, your only real next response is......go tell that to his wife. Thought so.

I believe that it is inevitable in motorsport that, very unfortunately, some drivers will be injured or worse. I do not believe that every potential measure should be taken to increase safety to the detriment of spectacle, because risk can never be eliminated completely. But I would never advocate actively wanting to bring about situations, such as continuous speed increases, that render such situations definitively more likely. And I simply do not understand the mentality whereby speed is everything. The Italian Grand Prix in 1971 was the fastest F1 race in terms of average speed for some 30 years. The fact that average speeds thereafter were not as high did not kill the sport stone dead. Maybe the F1 enthusiast of that period was rather more discerning.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:58

I believe that it is inevitable in motorsport that, very unfortunately, some drivers will be injured or worse. I do not believe that every potential measure should be taken to increase safety to the detriment of spectacle, because risk can never be eliminated completely. But I would never advocate actively wanting to bring about situations, such as continuous speed increases, that render such situations definitively more likely. And I simply do not understand the mentality whereby speed is everything. The Italian Grand Prix in 1971 was the fastest F1 race in terms of average speed for some 30 years. The fact that average speeds thereafter were not as high did not kill the sport stone dead. Maybe the F1 enthusiast of that period was rather more discerning.

.1

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 22:58

If you want good racing, you need to push the limits of what is achievable, otherwise everybody can do it.

Utter nonsense. I have watched much good — some great — racing in all sorts of formulae, from one-make hatchback series upwards.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 22:59

But I would never advocate actively wanting to bring about situations, such as continuous speed increases, that render such situations definitively more likely.

And neither would I.

Please show me where I suggested that.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:00

Utter nonsense. I have watched much good — some great — racing in all sorts of formulae, from one-make hatchback series upwards.

So I will ask for the third time, why not slow down the touring cars?

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 23:05

And neither would I.

Please show me where I suggested that.

It is inherent in what you wish for, namely ever-increasing speeds.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 23:05

So I will ask for the third time, why not slow down the touring cars?

What do you mean by 'the touring cars'? There is more than one sort of touring car formula, I have to tell you.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:08

What do you mean by 'the touring cars'? There is more than one sort of touring car formula, I have to tell you.

Come on, seriously, you are going to be that obtuse........how about any of them, or more specifically the British Touring Car Championship. You should be okay with slowing them down right, provided the racing is still "good".

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:10

It is inherent in what you wish for, namely ever-increasing speeds.

No, you are inferring one thing to assume what it is you think I would like.

I don't want to see speeds increased in order to put more lives in danger and that is what you are inferring.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 23:16

Come on, seriously, you are going to be that obtuse........how about any of them, or more specifically the British Touring Car Championship. You should be okay with slowing them down right, provided the racing is still "good".

I wasn't being obtuse at all. It was a perfectly reasonable question — and you clearly don't know anything about British touring car racing, otherwise you would know that it has, on occasions over time, been slowed down. I have never had a problem with it. Nor did I have a problem with the switch from Group B to Group A as the premier class in the World Rally Championship.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 23:17

No, you are inferring one thing to assume what it is you think I would like.

I don't want to see speeds increased in order to put more lives in danger and that is what you are inferring.

But I say again that one follows from the other, and I find the fact that this does not bother you troubling.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:19

I wasn't being obtuse at all. It was a perfectly reasonable question — and you clearly don't know anything about British touring car racing, otherwise you would know that it has, on occasions over time, been slowed down. I have never had a problem with it. Nor did I have a problem with the switch from Group B to Group A as the premier class in the World Rally Championship.

I guess I need to ask a fourth time..........would you be okay slowing them down for the 2012 season? It's a simple question to answer, I don't know why you are having such a difficult time saying yes or no to it.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:20

But I say again that one follows from the other, and I find the fact that this does not bother you troubling.

Well, don't lose any sleep over it.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:21

What about Gary? Where is our buddy Gary hiding, is he trying to devise a clever response to avoid addressing the issue of dropping Indy Car in favor of Indy Lights.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 23:25

I guess I need to ask a fourth time..........would you be okay slowing them down for the 2012 season? It's a simple question to answer, I don't know why you are having such a difficult time saying yes or no to it.

Because the question is ridiculous, and clearly being posed by someone with a limited depth to their motorsport enthusiasm. No, I would not, because there is no need — speeds have not risen exponentially to a point at which they have become intrinsically unsafe. Were this to be the case, my answer would probably be different.

Loneranger

20th December 2011, 23:29

Because the question is ridiculous, and clearly being posed by someone with a limited depth to their motorsport enthusiasm. No, I would not, because there is no need — speeds have not risen exponentially to a point at which they have become intrinsically unsafe. Were this to be the case, my answer would probably be different.

Hey Sarahfan, does this make any sense to you? :D :D :D

So based on that, you clearly think the 2012 Indy Car season was far to dangerous and the series needed to do something to slow the cars down. Perfect, I now understand your point of view completely. Why didn't you just start by saying Indy Car has gotten to dangerous.

BDunnell

20th December 2011, 23:32

So based on that, you clearly think the 2012 Indy Car season was far to dangerous and the series needed to do something to slow the cars down. Perfect, I now understand your point of view completely. Why didn't you just start by saying Indy Car has gotten to dangerous.

You seem to have difficulty with any post that is in any sense nuanced. What I believe is that continuous speed increases will lead to a situation in which any form of motorsport may end up becoming too dangerous. Every so often, a bit of pegging-back may be required.

garyshell

20th December 2011, 23:54

What you fail to comprehend is we are NOW AT THE END GAME!!! And millions of fans have walked away from the sport.

There is no elephant in the room.

Ironically safety has killed this sport!!!

Holy !@#$%, that was a nice dodge if I ever saw it. I didn't ask why it should be a seperate and distinct series, I asked why not just eliminate Indy Car and focus entirely on Indy Lights. I guess you don't have the nads. It's a simple question. If speed isn't everything, there should be a very simple case to be made for eliminating the big cars, you know.....THE FASTER ONES, and simply racing the slower ones or the ones known as Indy Lights.

Come on Gary address it instead of avoiding and dancing around it. Mt freaking grandmother has better moves then your tiny two step.

Still waiting for YOU to answer the question about what is the end game of YOUR scenario of endlessly chasing new records.

I did answer the question you just don't like the answer. I said there needs to be a "farm team" series for up and coming drivers. Those cars need to be slower than the main series. Which part of "there need to be two series" don't you get (or don't WANT to get)?

Gary

garyshell

21st December 2011, 00:00

Ya, they are all united in one point of view, millions of them have walked away from the sport because they no longer have an interest in it! So yes, fans, by the millions are very united. They have unequivocally made a statement that they aren't buying.

Is that arrogant? Is .1 ratings arrogance? I hardly think so.

What IS arrogant is your thinking you know why all of them left and what would make all of them return.

You seem desperate to ignore that nobody is watching Indy Car any longer!!! You also ignored the notion of slowing down the touring cars. You also are changing the conversation now into a safety issue. You are diverting the conversation from this being about fans wanting to see fast speeds or good racing to it being about safety controlling the speeds.

Which is it so I can keep on track? Have you given up on the one angle? Maybe you don't want to have to answer the Indy Lights question either. :D

Are you REALLY suggesting that there is no connection whatsoever between continuously higher speeds and safety? Really? Un-freakin'-believable. (But predictable.)

Gary

garyshell

21st December 2011, 00:07

What about Gary? Where is our buddy Gary hiding, is he trying to devise a clever response to avoid addressing the issue of dropping Indy Car in favor of Indy Lights.

I addressed it. I am not hiding anywhere. Just because I don't spend every waking minute watching to see what YOU have to say and instantly reponding does not mean I am hiding.

Gary

garyshell

21st December 2011, 00:11

Hey Sarahfan, does this make any sense to you? :D :D :D

So based on that, you clearly think the 2012 Indy Car season was far to dangerous and the series needed to do something to slow the cars down. Perfect, I now understand your point of view completely. Why didn't you just start by saying Indy Car has gotten to dangerous.

Once again, I ask where did you see ANYONE saying "the series needed to do something to slow the cars down"? I didn't say that, nor have I sen anyone else do so. I said the series needs to do something to eliminate 100% throttle racing and if a consequence of that was slower lap times I was ok with that. Or are you unable (or more likely unwilling) to see the difference in those two ideas?

Gary

zzatz

21st December 2011, 00:20

If you want good racing, you need to push the limits of what is achievable, otherwise everybody can do it.

Push which limits? You seem to prefer pushing speed to the limit. I prefer to push driving skill to the limit. I find packs of cars traveling at the same speed boring, no matter how fast they are going. Pushing braking to the limit makes good racing, when it depends on driver skill, and not when done by computer. Pushing cornering to the limit makes good racing, when everyone must slow for the corner and driver skill and judgement differs on how fast the corner can be taken. The same for accelerating out of a turn; I want to see a difference in speed that depends on the driver. Absolute speed matters much less than relative speed.

We could easily have higher speeds at Indy if we did away with the requirement for open wheels. Fully enclosed cars are faster and safer. Is that what you want? Some people think that the slower speeds resulting from the higher drag of open wheels is worth the trade. Could it be that some factors are as important, or even more important, than speed?

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 00:24

Still waiting for YOU to answer the question about what is the end game of YOUR scenario of endlessly chasing new records.

I did answer the question you just don't like the answer. I said there needs to be a "farm team" series for up and coming drivers. Those cars need to be slower than the main series. Which part of "there need to be two series" don't you get (or don't WANT to get)?

Gary

Rediculous answer...

The question still stands..

Why not eliminate the Indycar series... Badge the lights Indycars .. Still multiple rungs on the ladder

Surely if speed and spectacle aren't an issue a 1/4 million people won't know the difference between the I500 and the freedom 500 ..... Right?

garyshell

21st December 2011, 02:21

Rediculous answer...

The question still stands..

Why not eliminate the Indycar series... Badge the lights Indycars .. Still multiple rungs on the ladder

Surely if speed and spectacle aren't an issue a 1/4 million people won't know the difference between the I500 and the freedom 500 ..... Right?

It's the question that is ridiculous. If you eliminate the Indycar series and rebadge the lights you have one series. Where is the lower rung? You eliminated one rung and didn't replace it. What answer are you looking for? Again you and Loneranger are stuck on the idea that someone is calling for slowing the cars down. No one is calling for that. We are calling for elimination of 100% throttle racing and if that means lap times suffer a bit we don't care. If there is a way to eliminate the 100% throttle racing and not slow them down, I am fine with that too. What I am NOT ok with is the ridiculous call for a never ending quest for faster and faster lap times. That idea in and of itself is stupid, ignores everything the drivers themselves have said and does nothing to effect the RACE in any positive manner. All it does is create your sensational headline that you seem to thing is the magic bullet for getting the attention of John and Jane Doe.

Gary

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 03:31

Your rediculous

Don't know what else to say

Clearly you can't answer a simple question without the ol dodge and weave

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 09:17

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 09:17

Your rediculous

Don't know what else to say

Clearly you can't answer a simple question without the ol dodge and weave

Maybe he doesn't take a simplistic attitude to his racing, unlike some?

Oh, and it's 'ridiculous'.

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 11:36

Thanks for the spell check much appreciated

Its simple question that has been systematically ignored .... Feel free to answer it if you can

chuck34

21st December 2011, 13:41

SarahFan, I have a question for you. Do you think the 1961 Indy 500 was a better race than the, let's just say 1990 race? Why?

wedge

21st December 2011, 14:43

If you want good racing, you need to push the limits of what is achievable, otherwise everybody can do it. If you want to push those limits inevitably, you are going to dance with the devil pushing those boundaries.

I'm okay with that. Apparently you are not.

Right now, safety is driving this sport, when at one time it was innovation that drove it.

It's been said in hindsight by Dario Franchitti that open wheelers doing 240mph laps on superspeedways perhaps something was not quite right and certainly when CART tried to race at Texas the drivers were dancing with the devil and beyond.

History tells you that we go in cycles - whatever you do try to slow cars down the tech guys are smart enough to regain some/more speed back.

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 14:48

History tells you that we go in cycles - whatever you do try to slow cars down the tech guys are smart enough to regain some/more speed back.

And often with accompanying improvements in safety. The fact of latter-day World Rally Cars setting faster stage times than the Group B 'supercars' over the same bits of road is a case in point.

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 15:15

SarahFan, I have a question for you. Do you think the 1961 Indy 500 was a better race than the, let's just say 1990 race? Why?

Never saw the 1961 race...

Can/will you answer the question repeatedly posed?

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 15:23

Never saw the 1961 race...

Can/will you answer the question repeatedly posed?

Great avoidance there.

Why this obsession with a rather (to borrow another member's favourite word) asinine question? Yet you continue to pose it over and over again, while ignoring all the very reasonable ones being put to you by others.

garyshell

21st December 2011, 15:28

Your rediculous

Don't know what else to say

Clearly you can't answer a simple question without the ol dodge and weave

The simple question was: Why not eliminate the Indycars and just run the Lights instead? Right?
The simple answer is: Because 1. doing so would eliminate the lower tier of a two tiered system. A system I think is important. 2. It reduces the horsepower and does nothing to address the REAL issue of elimnating the 100% throttle racing.

Is there something you don't understand about those answers, or is there some other answer you want me to give you.

Gary

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 15:28

SarahFan, I have a question for you. Do you think the 1961 Indy 500 was a better race than the, let's just say 1990 race? Why?

Don't worry, I'll engage with this very sensible question. Earlier I mentioned the 1971 Italian GP, then the fastest GP ever in terms of average speed (now I come to think of it, I may have been wrong earlier to say that it had been surpassed — maybe someone can confirm this). Now, as it happens it was a great race, but to use some of the reasoning being deployed here, it must definitely the greatest race there has ever been purely on the grounds of the speed attained. This to me is an absurd measure. Or am I missing something about the nature of American racing, in which such statistics as numbers of lead changes are deemed more important than they are in other forms of motorsport?

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 15:29

How can I comment on a race I never saw?...

Yet you ignore the question.... Why is it so tough?

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 15:32

How can I comment on a race I never saw?...

It's called having some appreciation for, or knowledge of, history.

garyshell

21st December 2011, 15:34

Thanks for the spell check much appreciated

Its simple question that has been systematically ignored .... Feel free to answer it if you can

The only thing being ignored are the answers. Just for the sake of argument, how would YOU answer the question if you disagreed with the questions premise? Its like asking "Why not replace the shelves of CocaCola with Diet Coke?" How would YOU answer that question?

Gary

chuck34

21st December 2011, 15:36

Never saw the 1961 race...

Can/will you answer the question repeatedly posed?

'61 is generally accepted as one of the most exciting 500's. Ok so how about '82 vs '90?

Which question, the one about the Lights? I think Gary answered it quite well. There needs to be a Lights class to train the up and coming drivers. And there is no need to slow the IndyCars (or "big" cars) down that much. The main reason behind slowing cars down is safety. 220 at the Speedway is "safe enough". 240 starts to flirt with that line.

Bottom line, you can make a car hard to drive at 200 mph, and that would showcase driver talent. Conversly you can make a car go 240 that you and I can drive. And vice-versa. Most fans that I know want to see the driver become an integral part of winning again. That can be done at any speed, you do not need records to do that. I do somewhat agree that speed records would be nice to see. But ever increasing speeds are unsustainable. Every form of racing has seen rules put in place to slow them down. I don't see how that (slowing cars) is in and of itself bad, as long as the driver still makes a difference, and we don't see pack racing.

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 15:40

But the system is in fact multi tiered ...... So that 1/2 of your answer just doesn't fly ...

We can't tell the difference between 200 215 or 240... Right?

So let's just tweak the indylights chassis so they need to lift in 1 and 3 and let's go racing.. Right?

Cheaper safer better right?

The simple question was: Why not eliminate the Indycars and just run the Lights instead? Right?
The simple answer is: Because 1. doing so would eliminate the lower tier of a two tiered system. A system I think is important. 2. It reduces the horsepower and does nothing to address the REAL issue of elimnating the 100% throttle racing.

Is there something you don't understand about those answers, or is there some other answer you want me to give you.

Gary

chuck34

21st December 2011, 15:40

How can I comment on a race I never saw?...

Yet you ignore the question.... Why is it so tough?

I never saw the 1961 race either, but I sure wish I would have been around. That was one heck of a race from what I hear, and the footage I've seen.

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 15:46

Chuck....see my reply above.... The system is in fact multi tiered so that. Of an answer at all

And if they can make the dw12 tough to drive at 220.... Why not tweak the current indylights chassis or similar tough to drive at 190 or 220?

Do you thinks fans can tell the difference between the freedom 100 and the I500?

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 15:48

Chuck....see my reply above.... The system is in fact multi tiered so that. Of an answer at all

My apologies, but I genuinely have no idea what this means.

chuck34

21st December 2011, 15:58

Chuck....see my reply above.... The system is in fact multi tiered so that. Of an answer at all

So in your system what would take the place of the current Lights? Seems to me you are advocating for loosing a step in the ladder (the top one).

And if they can make the dw12 tough to drive at 220.... Why not tweak the current indylights chassis or similar tough to drive at 190 or 220?

Now who is doing the ignoring? I said that it wasn't necessary to drop below 220 because that is "safe enough". What is the need to drive 190? You are arguing a point no one is trying to make.

Do you thinks fans can tell the difference between the freedom 100 and the I500?

Yes I do think you can tell the difference between 190 and 220. Is that what matters though?

garyshell

21st December 2011, 16:01

But the system is in fact multi tiered ...... So that 1/2 of your answer just doesn't fly ...

We can't tell the difference between 200 215 or 240... Right?

So let's just tweak the indylights chassis so they need to lift in 1 and 3 and let's go racing.. Right?

Cheaper safer better right?

How is it a multi tier system when you have eliminated one of the tiers, or if, what I think you are trying to say, is having both tiers run the same car?

Did anyone say no one could discern the difference between 200 and 240? No.

Why would we do as you suggest and just run the Indy Lights cars? I just don't see the point. It makes no sense to even consider it. Yet you are obsessed with getting some answer to a question that is ridiculous in the first place.

Gary

SarahFan

21st December 2011, 16:02

It's called having some appreciation for, or knowledge of, history.

Ok.... Still never saw the race

chuck34

21st December 2011, 16:04

Ok.... Still never saw the race

And you've never seen any highlights? Never heard any stories? Ok how about this ... What is your favorite Indy 500 and why?

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 17:16

Sarahfan, you are trying to carry on a conversation with a group of people that ride the short bus!

We both know its the simplest question in the world to try and answer yet time and time again they duck and dodge and bob and weave avoiding the simplest of answers because we both know they cannot answer the question.

Their lack of a genuine response in addressing the question tells me all the answer I need to know.

http://mike.shannonandmike.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/short-bus.jpg

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 17:29

Sarahfan, you are trying to carry on a conversation with a group of people that ride the short bus!

We both know its the simplest question in the world to try and answer yet time and time again they duck and dodge and bob and weave avoiding the simplest of answers because we both know they cannot answer the question.

Their lack of a genuine response in addressing the question tells me all the answer I need to know.

As opposed to the detailed and authoritative responses you have provided to all the points made in opposition to your own, I presume.

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 17:31

No, to beat the competition you only have to go faster than than the competition goes on that particular day. It doesn't make any difference how fast the competition went last month, last year or last decade. You need to go faster than the other guy using the current configuration car and engine today.

If, on the other hand, it's only about having the fastest absolute speed, then you can run one car at a time against the clock. Solves much of the safety problem too. If you crash you only take out your own car.

Indy Cars since the dawn of time have found a way to progressively go faster and faster and faster through the years until about the split, and then that all stopped.

You make the argument into whatever you would like to make the argument into, it's all semantics!

The quest for speed has stopped. It isn't more complicated.

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com:8080/var/assets/stats/500/2011-pole-position-winners.pdf

Penske and Lola, and everybody else I listed didn't spend millions of dollars trying to be faster then the current competition, they spent millions of dollars trying to go faster than they did the year before. It was a quest, it was a journey, it was an attempt to keep going faster and faster to beat your competitors to the finish line.

A track record was nothing more then a measuring stick to acknowledge you accomplished that.

!@#$%, get rid of the track record then, I don't care, make this years car faster then last years car, then make the 2013 car faster then the 2011 and 2012 car, then make the 2014 car faster then the 2011-2013 cars. Who cares about the track record if you guys are so bent on the track record. I don't need a track record. I need a faster and faster car.

A faster and faster car pushes the envelope. It makes things more dangerous and more risky and it returns a certain bravado to the series that is clearly missing, and it makes these guys once again special. That is what the audience can connect with. But guys like Gary are so near sited that they can't see beyond their nose to understand that it isn't about hearing an announcer shout out to the audience a new record, it's about engaging an audience and recapturing the passion that once existed.

A faster and faster car as it pushes the envelope becomes a more difficult car to drive and that is when we see a level of skill return to the series that has been missing.

That passion doesn't occur with slower cars. It just doesn't. BDunnel as much as he likes to avoid the question would not waste his time watching the Touring Cars next year if they were suddenly racing 40 mph slower then they did this year. He wouldn't! Why would he?

You can look at any event over the course of the last century:

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com:8080/var/assets/stats/500/2011-pole-position-winners.pdf

The cars have progressively gone faster and faster and faster until the split! Then it stopped.

Now, we are going to have an even slower car for 2012, and this is somehow supposed to excite an audience and rekindle a passion that once existed amongst millions of millions of fans that have walked away from the series. You know, those low lying fruit that Bernard likes to mention. Ya right.

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 17:38

Indy Cars since the dawn of time have found a way to progressively go faster and faster and faster through the years until about the split, and then that all stopped.

You make the argument into whatever you would like to make the argument into, it's all semantics!

The quest for speed has stopped. It isn't more complicated.

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com:8080/var/assets/stats/500/2011-pole-position-winners.pdf

Penske and Lola, and everybody else I listed didn't spend millions of dollars trying to be faster then the current competition, they spent millions of dollars trying to go faster than they did the year before. It was a quest, it was a journey, it was an attempt to keep going faster and faster to beat your competitors to the finish line.

A track record was nothing more then a measuring stick to acknowledge you accomplished that.

!@#$%, get rid of the track record then, I don't care, make this years car faster then last years car, then make the 2013 car faster then the 2011 and 2012 car, then make the 2014 car faster then the 2011-2013 cars. Who cares about the track record if you guys are so bent on the track record. I don't need a track record. I need a faster and faster car.

A faster and faster car pushes the envelope. It makes things more dangerous and more risky and it returns a certain bravado to the series that is clearly missing, and it makes these guys once again special. That is what the audience can connect with. But guys like Gary are so near sited that they can't see beyond their nose to understand that it isn't about hearing an announcer shout out to the audience a new record, it's about engaging an audience and recapturing the passion that once existed.

A faster and faster car as it pushes the envelope becomes a more difficult car to drive and that is when we see a level of skill return to the series that has been missing.

That passion doesn't occur with slower cars. It just doesn't. BDunnel as much as he likes to avoid the question would not waste his time watching the Touring Cars next year if they were suddenly racing 40 mph slower then they did this year. He wouldn't! Why would he?

You can look at any event over the course of the last century:

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com:8080/var/assets/stats/500/2011-pole-position-winners.pdf

The cars have progressively gone faster and faster and faster until the split! Then it stopped.

Now, we are going to have an even slower car for 2012, and this is somehow supposed to excite an audience and rekindle a passion that once existed amongst millions of millions of fans that have walked away from the series. You know, those low lying fruit that Bernard likes to mention. Ya right.

And loads of perfectly good counter-arguments have been put to you, all of which you blatantly ignore while choosing instead to rubbish those of us who disagree with you.

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 17:45

And loads of perfectly good counter-arguments have been put to you, all of which you blatantly ignore while choosing instead to rubbish those of us who disagree with you.

Great, then race with a slower car. I'm sure you will enjoy it and millions of fans will return to watch the series.

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 17:48

You seem to have difficulty with any post that is in any sense nuanced. What I believe is that continuous speed increases will lead to a situation in which any form of motorsport may end up becoming too dangerous. Every so often, a bit of pegging-back may be required.

So like I said, you think things have gotten too dangerous.

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 17:49

Great, then race with a slower car. I'm sure you will enjoy it and millions of fans will return to watch the series.

Again, you ignore the points put to you. Those you make have either been addressed, albeit not in a matter that satisfies you, or, as others have said, simply aren't worth responding to.

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 17:50

So like I said, you think things have gotten too dangerous.

No! What exactly is the problem you have with reading an answer that isn't just 'yes' or 'no'? Note my use of the phrase 'may end up becoming too dangerous'. Others have made the same point as me and done so far better.

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 18:04

No! What exactly is the problem you have with reading an answer that isn't just 'yes' or 'no'? Note my use of the phrase 'may end up becoming too dangerous'. Others have made the same point as me and done so far better.

So you don't think the series was too dangerous. Perfect, good to know.

Because in post #435 you asked:

But what is wrong with a small speed reduction?

You also said in post #442:

I believe that it is inevitable in motorsport that, very unfortunately, some drivers will be injured or worse. I do not believe that every potential measure should be taken to increase safety to the detriment of spectacle, because risk can never be eliminated completely.

So you can see my confusion to think that you want to see a speed reduction because things have gotten too dangerous.

Maybe you can clear things up then and if it isn't because things are too dangerous, why on earth would you like to see the series racing slower cars? ;)

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 18:40

So you don't think the series was too dangerous. Perfect, good to know.

Because in post #435 you asked:

You also said in post #442:

So you can see my confusion to think that you want to see a speed reduction because things have gotten too dangerous.

Maybe you can clear things up then and if it isn't because things are too dangerous, why on earth would you like to see the series racing slower cars? ;)

Your examination of my previous posts is hardly forensic, I have to say. There is nothing contradictory in them. You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding quite simple arguments, and even more in responding to comments made against your point of view.

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 18:44

Your examination of my previous posts is hardly forensic, I have to say. There is nothing contradictory in them. You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding quite simple arguments, and even more in responding to comments made against your point of view.

And you have a hard time answering questions........

I'll try again, why do you want to slow the cars down?

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 18:54

And you have a hard time answering questions........

I'll try again, why do you want to slow the cars down?

Honestly, how many times do I have to answer this? I say this not in any sense rhetorically, but because the point has been done to death. Because, as stated over and over again, I believe that constantly rising speeds are unsustainable in safety terms, and unnecessary for good racing. The point has been made many times in this thread. I am sure you will now come back with what you consider to be a suitably 'clever' riposte, while still continuing not to answer any of the questions posed to you. For instance, do you feel that the 1971 Italian GP has to be the best F1 race ever just because it is also the fastest?

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 19:04

Honestly, how many times do I have to answer this? I say this not in any sense rhetorically, but because the point has been done to death. Because, as stated over and over again, I believe that constantly rising speeds are unsustainable in safety terms, and unnecessary for good racing. The point has been made many times in this thread. I am sure you will now come back with what you consider to be a suitably 'clever' riposte, while still continuing not to answer any of the questions posed to you. For instance, do you feel that the 1971 Italian GP has to be the best F1 race ever just because it is also the fastest?

You talk in circles Dunnel. Either the series is too dangerous and you need to slow it down, or it's not to dangerous and you can continue pushing the boundaries. Which is it???

You fail to answer at what point it is at to justify your rationale for slowing the cars down for 2012. I'm done with this conversation as far as you are concerned. It's a pointless exercise one in which you just dance around. Go ahead and have the last word though, I know your type always love to have the last word. I'm done with it. Enjoy your slower cars for 2012. I'm sure it will be a captivating series for you.

I could careless about the 71 F1 race. Was it the fastest? If you say so, doesn't mean it was the best. But that will be lost on you.

BDunnell

21st December 2011, 19:18

You talk in circles Dunnel. Either the series is too dangerous and you need to slow it down, or it's not to dangerous and you can continue pushing the boundaries. Which is it???

You fail to answer at what point it is at to justify your rationale for slowing the cars down for 2012. I'm done with this conversation as far as you are concerned. It's a pointless exercise one in which you just dance around. Go ahead and have the last word though, I know your type always love to have the last word. I'm done with it. Enjoy your slower cars for 2012. I'm sure it will be a captivating series for you.

I could careless about the 71 F1 race. Was it the fastest? If you say so, doesn't mean it was the best. But that will be lost on you.

Ah, yes, give up on the discussion. Excellent way out. As much as I don't want to sound like Bob Riebe, I find your points and your way of discussion somewhat vacuous. And I'm not in the least surprised that you don't care about the 1971 Italian GP, nor that SarahFan doesn't know about the 1961 Indy 500, because the likes of you clearly don't care about motorsport, but purely about speed.

chuck34

21st December 2011, 19:38

chuck34

21st December 2011, 19:41

Indy Cars since the dawn of time have found a way to progressively go faster and faster and faster through the years until about the split, and then that all stopped.

You make the argument into whatever you would like to make the argument into, it's all semantics!

The quest for speed has stopped. It isn't more complicated.

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com:8080/var/assets/stats/500/2011-pole-position-winners.pdf

Penske and Lola, and everybody else I listed didn't spend millions of dollars trying to be faster then the current competition, they spent millions of dollars trying to go faster than they did the year before. It was a quest, it was a journey, it was an attempt to keep going faster and faster to beat your competitors to the finish line.

A track record was nothing more then a measuring stick to acknowledge you accomplished that.

!@#$%, get rid of the track record then, I don't care, make this years car faster then last years car, then make the 2013 car faster then the 2011 and 2012 car, then make the 2014 car faster then the 2011-2013 cars. Who cares about the track record if you guys are so bent on the track record. I don't need a track record. I need a faster and faster car.

A faster and faster car pushes the envelope. It makes things more dangerous and more risky and it returns a certain bravado to the series that is clearly missing, and it makes these guys once again special. That is what the audience can connect with. But guys like Gary are so near sited that they can't see beyond their nose to understand that it isn't about hearing an announcer shout out to the audience a new record, it's about engaging an audience and recapturing the passion that once existed.

A faster and faster car as it pushes the envelope becomes a more difficult car to drive and that is when we see a level of skill return to the series that has been missing.

That passion doesn't occur with slower cars. It just doesn't. BDunnel as much as he likes to avoid the question would not waste his time watching the Touring Cars next year if they were suddenly racing 40 mph slower then they did this year. He wouldn't! Why would he?

You can look at any event over the course of the last century:

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com:8080/var/assets/stats/500/2011-pole-position-winners.pdf

The cars have progressively gone faster and faster and faster until the split! Then it stopped.

Now, we are going to have an even slower car for 2012, and this is somehow supposed to excite an audience and rekindle a passion that once existed amongst millions of millions of fans that have walked away from the series. You know, those low lying fruit that Bernard likes to mention. Ya right.

Do you understand where this eternal quest for speed ends? It ends when spectators die because one of these cars goes flying into the stands. And by end, I mean END, finished, final, caput, finito, over, done, there is no more.

chuck34

21st December 2011, 19:42

Great, then race with a slower car. I'm sure you will enjoy it and millions of fans will return to watch the series.

Why does it have to be slower? Why can't it be the same speed, but not flat out, 100% full throttle, pack racing?

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 19:48

Hey Sarahfan, maybe these guys are all right, maybe we should slow the cars down.......I had a bunch of buddies that stayed home this year instead of going to the Milwaukee race and they said they didn't go cause the cars were just to fast and getting to be far too dangerous. I'm starting to think maybe everybody else is right, maybe I am the problem. Maybe I am the one that is wrong.

I'm starting to think the answer truly is to slow these cars down. These guys have convinced me.

Indy Car had better start building some new stands for 2012, and I'll tell you, the current sponsors are going to get one hell of a good value for their current sponsorship packages when ratings start to soar this coming year with all the returning fans tuning in to watch the slower cars.

The more I think about it, the more and more I am getting pumped for these slower cars. You know, it's like hockey, I always had a hard time keeping track of that tiny puck, Fox made it so much easier when they introduced the glowing puck. Made it so much easier to track. I didn't want to admit it, but these last few years, and especially back in the early nineties, Indy Cars were nothing but a blur out there on the track, I couldn't keep track of who was who they were going so fast. Especially in the later years with all the red and white cars, man, once they hit speeds, you can't see anything but a foggy blur of red and white smudges.

This new season, I am actually going to be able to keep track of some of my favorite drivers. Think how much easier a time I am going to have distinguishing Sato from Ej now. I mean before, I'd get caught jumping up and down yelling go EJ, and people would look at me and say, don't you mean Sato, and I would say, ahem, ya, I mean go Sato. 2012, I'm not going to need to worry about that any longer. And I can't be the only one, there have got to be tons of other fans just like me that are getting excited over the notion of slowing these cars down. I had better start thinking about buying my tickets early before everything sells out over the excitement and stampede to see these slower cars.

chuck34

21st December 2011, 19:51

You talk in circles Dunnel. Either the series is too dangerous and you need to slow it down, or it's not to dangerous and you can continue pushing the boundaries. Which is it???

Why can't it be the third option? That the speeds are fairly safe right where they are now, 220-230 at Indy, but any faster becomes dangerous. So let's keep the speeds where they are, or there about, a little slower this year could very well (and most likely will) become a little faster next year. And at the same time make the racing better, by bringing the driver back into the equation, and eliminating pack racing.

SarahFan likes making stupid little slogans so how about this. "IndyCar: where the driver wins the race, not luck."

You fail to answer at what point it is at to justify your rationale for slowing the cars down for 2012. I'm done with this conversation as far as you are concerned. It's a pointless exercise one in which you just dance around. Go ahead and have the last word though, I know your type always love to have the last word. I'm done with it. Enjoy your slower cars for 2012. I'm sure it will be a captivating series for you.

Who the h-e-double hockey sticks has said they wanted to slow the cars down? No one that's who. All anyone has been saying is that they are ok with slower speeds IF THE RACING IS BETTER. I honestly don't understand why you are against that.

Loneranger's slogan "IndyCar: Where we're so fast we kill people. But at least the racing's boring."

I could careless about the 71 F1 race. Was it the fastest? If you say so, doesn't mean it was the best. But that will be lost on you.

But all you have been arguing about for the last who knows how many pages is that you want faster and faster speeds to infinity and beyond. So why wouldn't the '71 Italian GP and the '90 Indy 500 be your absolute, most favoritest, super spectactular races of all time?

chuck34

21st December 2011, 19:56

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 20:05

But all you have been arguing about for the last who knows how many pages is that you want faster and faster speeds to infinity and beyond. So why wouldn't the '71 Italian GP and the '90 Indy 500 be your absolute, most favoritest, super spectactular races of all time?

So clearly you don't understand my point of view! ;)

Loneranger

21st December 2011, 20:06

Hey Gary and Ben I think Loneranger is right, he's convinced me. They should just let these cars go as fast as they want. It'll be great. We won't have to worry about keeping track of where the cars are anymore 'cause all we'll have to do is follow the flashing lights and sirens to the crash scene. And hopefully, if we're really lucky, we'll be able to see the blood and guts not only of the driver (or driver(s), oh could we be that lucky) but maybe a few dozen fans too.

The more I think about it the the more and more I am getting pumped for these faster cars. You know, it'll be nice not to have to blow a bunch of money on tickets anymore, or worry about what to watch on Sunday afternoons. Do you think if I work really hard I'll be able to get one of the new houses in that sub-division at 16th and Georgetown?

Is that what was happening prior to the last track record? Cause prior to the last track record they were allowed to race to infinity and beyond.