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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
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
Yes, without sarcasm really, something like the "new" cars for 1997 season - slow, but it was not the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by "
Me too. I had already written about that. Even without new lap records above 240mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by "
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by "
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
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.
How do you beat the competition Gary?Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
Great! Do it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
But guess what, that isn't what is being done and you seem to be okay with it.
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
lQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
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.
When was the last time a lap record was broken in F1?
They seem to have no problem growing their series.
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.
Actually it's Silverstone in 2010.
Why not just make the 500 a single weekend event?
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
Again, this is just too easy. You beat them by crossing the finish line first you do NOT beat them by being on the pole or by setting a "neeeeeew laaaaaaap record".Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
And who noticed? Or cared?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
On the surface, nobody.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
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!!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
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???
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
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.
Do try to pay attention, I have been very consistent in calling for higher horsepower and less downforce to eliminate the 100% throttle racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
Gary
Dumbing down the sport had gotten us to exactly the point were at
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by "
More news...........
AUTO RACING - INDYCAR: New McLaren ECU, Sato, Pagenaud Log Testing Miles At Sebring
I have stated before ,it will be interesting and that is good!
YES AND AT THE EXPENSE OF SPEED!Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
Do try and pay attention........you need them both.
Do try and pay attention......I hate 100% throttle racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
I am with you 100%, but there are others here who seem to think speed is king.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Gary
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?
Speed does matter. It's not the only thing that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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.
Zzats...
This series desperatly needs the headlines right now
Like I said, 'dumbing-down'.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan