New car news!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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

Your rediculous

Don't know what else to say

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

---

Thank you for putting this point so coherently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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'.

Thanks for the spell check much appreciated

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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

---

Ok.... Still never saw the race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

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?

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-co.../short-bus.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.