New car news!!

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?