Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneranger
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 wedge
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Never saw the 1961 race...
Can/will you answer the question repeatedly posed?
Great avoidance there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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.
The simple question was: Why not eliminate the Indycars and just run the Lights instead? Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How can I comment on a race I never saw?...
Yet you ignore the question.... Why is it so tough?
It's called having some appreciation for, or knowledge of, history.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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
'61 is generally accepted as one of the most exciting 500's. Ok so how about '82 vs '90?Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahFan
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.