New car news!!

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.

---

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...on-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...on-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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...on-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...on-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But what is wrong with a small speed reduction?

---

You also said in post #442:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loneranger

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?