New car news!!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

22nd December 2011, 17:40
Loneranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

You are wrong because you seem to think that somehow because a driver must lift (ie use his/her skill) that is somehow easy to drive. You are wrong because you think this only applies to Indy. You are wrong because you think that the only thing fans care about are new records.

You are right though ... You do ride the short bus. :rolleyes:

How about those speeds going on un-controlled pre-1996 though. Those times were great, weren't they?

You are cracked.......show me where on earth I said just cause you needed to lift that it was easy. Show me!!! I asked you if I was wrong in my understanding of what you guys are looking for and you completely failed to address that and instead are now making things up like I said it was easy if you need to lift. You are completely out to lunch.

It's the bloody twilight zone in here.
22nd December 2011, 18:11
Loneranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

Please show me one example of where I said the cars NEED to be slowed down.

You said you were okay with slower speeds. I never said you said you wanted slower cars. I'm arguing with you that slower cars is a bad thing, you are arguing slower cars is a good thing if it meets your goal of eliminating 100% throttle racing. Are you following along???

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

1. We think 100% throttle racing is NOT, I repeat not, racing.

Guess what, I agree!

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

2. We think the cars need MORE, I repeat more, horsepower.

Guess what? I agree!

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

3. We think the cars need LESS, once again that is less, horsepower.

Now I am confused......I am going to assume you meant to say downforce! Correct? If so, guess what, I agree!

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

4. We think this will result in the drivers having to lift entering the corners. That means the have to take their right foot off the floor and maybe even apply pressure to the brake pedal.

Guess what? I agree!

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

5. We think if that results in a slightly slower over all lap time that is ok. Note again we did NOT say we want it to cause a slower lap time, which you are fixated on thinking we are saying. We said we don't want it, but are willing to accept it.

This is where I disagree. You need to do all that without reducing overall lap times which means straight line speed entering corners needs to be higher then where we are at now. You can't sacrifice lap times in an effort to achieve those goals, you just said you yourself that you don't want that! You don't want it. Which means you aren't happy about it, but you are accepting of it. I get it, I understand, what you aren't understanding is that you are in the minority. The majority of fans aren't accepting. The proof is the millions of fans that have walked away from the sport over the years. Slowing cars even more will only further turn fans away, and it will turn them away because you just admitted that slower cars is not what you want so how can you expect millions of fans to either A want to see slower cars, or B be accepting of slower cars simply because it means they need to "lift" in corners.

People want to see a spectacle. Controlling/navigating/RACING super fast cars is what creates that spectacle.

Otherwise, like I said, which all you guys fail to keep addressing is why not come out with the simplest cheapest solution which is to mandate Firestone make a less effective tire that falls off making the car harder to drive. That is what F1 does with Pirelli! It's artificial BS!

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

You understand the difference between wanting something to happen and accepting that it might happen, right?

Sure I do but you guys didn't seem to get that when you were all piling on about the safety and death issues! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

6. We are not calling for any substantive slowing of the cars like the ridiculous numbers you and Ken throw around 240 down to 220 down to 200. We are not CALLING for ANY slowing at all, merely accepting that if there is a small slowing it is ok as long as the goal of removing the 100% throttle "racing".

Like I said, if you want to get rid of 100% throttle racing, start racing with a crummier tire. You don't need new engines, new chassis and millions of new investment spent by all these teams, just mandate Firestone to make a tire that falls off quicker. Why not do that, that will give you non 100% throttle racing. Case closed, problem solved.

The only reason you would not want to do that is that it would guarantee slower speeds. And you know deep down inside that is a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garyshell

OK does that get through are are YOU the one who "rides the short bus"?

I know you are but what am I.....can you guys not come up with something more clever then throwing the shortbus comment back at me. Come on. Weak sauce!

Gary, face it, you know slower speeds are a bad thing, you've admitted to it in this post. You said you don't want to see them. There is a reason you don't want to see them. Just because you are accepting of it doesn't make it the right direction.

The early nineties offered high horsepower cars that you couldn't drive flat out and guess what, lap times were quicker then they are now, that is what we need a return to. It worked because you were pushing the boundaries. The boundaries of physics, the unknown, the undeveloped are what limited speeds. So you were able to have skill separate great drivers from the good ones.

You aren't going to attain that with a car that is slower than the current one.

I'm done. If you can't get that if all your cronies can't understand that, then you are all just interested in trying to be right then trying to have a conversation and understanding each others view point. And don't even begin any of you to try and argue that I haven't attempted to understand your viewpoints, because I have repeatedly by asking you why not just race Indy Lights, or why not race with a harder tire, if my understanding of what you want is correct etc.

So enjoy your 15 race schedule next year with slower cars, I'm sure you will see a gigantic spike in attendance and TV viewership.

Peace out, word to your motha!
22nd December 2011, 18:54
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

You are cracked.......show me where on earth I said just cause you needed to lift that it was easy. Show me!!! Otherwise you need to STFU and quit making things up. I asked you if I was wrong in my understanding of what you guys are looking for and you completely failed to address that and instead are now making things up like I said it was easy if you need to lift. You are completely out to lunch.

It's the bloody twilight zone in here.

post #520

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

So somehow they want these guys to need to lift off the throttle and magically make it a more difficult car to drive.

Twilight Zone indeed.
22nd December 2011, 18:58
Blancvino

This thread is turning into piss and vinegar. I hope you are nicer at your family gatherings this holiday season.
22nd December 2011, 18:59
chuck34

Lonranger let's take this out to the logical conclusion. IndyCar sees things your way and "let's 'em loose" for 2012. We see track records fall. At indy they go 245+. Then in 2013 they come back, and are going 255+. What happens in 2014 when we've reached the human limit on G-force?

Oh yeah, and I still haven't heard about how great things were back pre-'96, you know before any sanctioning body put any rules in place to limit speeds. Boy that really was great wasn't it? :D
22nd December 2011, 19:05
chuck34

Just went and re-looked at pole times from Indy and compared them to viewership. And boy were you guys right.

Pole in 1978 was Tom Sneva at 202.156. Then in 1979 they limited the boost to 50in (wait they wouldn't do that, right Lonerange), and the pole time dropped to 193.736 by Mears. Boy oh boy did the fans run away in droves that year. I mean I don't have the actual attendance numbers, but they MUST have stormed the ticket office and demanded their money back, right guys.

Or how about '92-'93 when the pole time fell from 232.482 all the way down to 223.967. Boy I remember the riots that year.
22nd December 2011, 19:17
SarahFan

Gary Please rank 1-3

Super Bowl
Motley Crüe
Beatles
22nd December 2011, 20:59
garyshell

Quote:

Originally Posted by SarahFan

Gary Please rank 1-3

Super Bowl
Motley Crüe
Beatles

Danger, Will Robinson. Danger. Non Sequitor alert. Danger, Will Robinson.

Gary
22nd December 2011, 21:21
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Just went and re-looked at pole times from Indy and compared them to viewership. And boy were you guys right.

Pole in 1978 was Tom Sneva at 202.156. Then in 1979 they limited the boost to 50in (wait they wouldn't do that, right Lonerange), and the pole time dropped to 193.736 by Mears. Boy oh boy did the fans run away in droves that year. I mean I don't have the actual attendance numbers, but they MUST have stormed the ticket office and demanded their money back, right guys.

Or how about '92-'93 when the pole time fell from 232.482 all the way down to 223.967. Boy I remember the riots that year.

Another of those posts that will, sadly, go unanswered — possibly even un-comprehended — by those who ought to respond to it. And yet they have the nerve to suggest that we are the 'dumbed-down' ones?

Maybe anyone can answer one of my questions. Am I missing the point of US open-wheel racing somewhat, in that, to me as a European, numbers of lead changes and similar statistics are unimportant other than as statistical curiosities?
22nd December 2011, 21:50
garyshell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

You said you were okay with slower speeds. I never said you said you wanted slower cars. I'm arguing with you that slower cars is a bad thing, you are arguing slower cars is a good thing if it meets your goal of eliminating 100% throttle racing. Are you following along???

In that narrow context of what has transpired in this thread we are close to agreement. But what you seem to have trouble grasping is the nuanced difference in what I am saying about slower cars. You say slower cars are a bad thing. I am not saying they are a good thing, I am saying they are an acceptable thing. There is a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

Now I am confused......I am going to assume you meant to say downforce! Correct? If so, guess what, I agree!

Yes, I meant downforce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

This is where I disagree. You need to do all that without reducing overall lap times which means straight line speed entering corners needs to be higher then where we are at now. You can't sacrifice lap times in an effort to achieve those goals, you just said you yourself that you don't want that! You don't want it. Which means you aren't happy about it, but you are accepting of it. I get it, I understand, what you aren't understanding is that you are in the minority. The majority of fans aren't accepting. The proof is the millions of fans that have walked away from the sport over the years. Slowing cars even more will only further turn fans away, and it will turn them away because you just admitted that slower cars is not what you want so how can you expect millions of fans to either A want to see slower cars, or B be accepting of slower cars simply because it means they need to "lift" in corners.

And this is where we part ways. What makes you think YOU know why those millions of fans left? You don't have any idea why they did. You THINK you do so because it would appear to make a case for your argument. I could just as easily say that they left because the cars were too damn fast. That assertion is equally as ridiculous as yours and I don't believe either. No exit poll was ever taken of those fans and without such you are in total speculation mode here in a lame attempt to prove your point. It proves NOTHING.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

People want to see a spectacle. Controlling/navigating/RACING super fast cars is what creates that spectacle.

Drop the word "super" and I agree. One of the most spectacular races I ever saw was the old "Le Car" series at Mid Ohio. Thirty or more street legal "Le Cars", many driven to the track that day, nose to tail, lifting the front inner tire as they came thru the Carousel. I don't recall ever seeing so many fans on their feet cheering at the top of their lungs there. People talked about those races for years thereafter. These cars would never be called super fast, hell they were barely able to be called fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

Like I said, if you want to get rid of 100% throttle racing, start racing with a crummier tire. You don't need new engines, new chassis and millions of new investment spent by all these teams, just mandate Firestone to make a tire that falls off quicker. Why not do that, that will give you non 100% throttle racing. Case closed, problem solved.

Trouble is that horse is already out of the barn. We have a new chassis and engines. Deal with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

Gary, face it, you know slower speeds are a bad thing, you've admitted to it in this post. You said you don't want to see them. There is a reason you don't want to see them. Just because you are accepting of it doesn't make it the right direction.

I admitted no such thing. All I said was I didn't want slower speeds, I never said they were bad. Just because I don't want something does not make it bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

The early nineties offered high horsepower cars that you couldn't drive flat out and guess what, lap times were quicker then they are now, that is what we need a return to. It worked because you were pushing the boundaries. The boundaries of physics, the unknown, the undeveloped are what limited speeds. So you were able to have skill separate great drivers from the good ones.

And nowhere in that equation is the NEED to include higher and higher speeds each year. You THINK it does but time and again this and other series have proved that wrong. Cars have been slowed down as a consequence of rules changes and the ability to readily discern talented drivers from hacks has not been diminished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

You aren't going to attain that with a car that is slower than the current one.

Why not? If the car is harder to drive, because of higher horsepower and less downforce, do you really think that all the drivers will look alike? I don't need to add HIGHER speed to the equation to make that happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

I'm done.

I doubt that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneranger

If you can't get that if all your cronies can't understand that, then you are all just interested in trying to be right then trying to have a conversation and understanding each others view point. And don't even begin any of you to try and argue that I haven't attempted to understand your viewpoints, because I have repeatedly by asking you why not just race Indy Lights, or why not race with a harder tire, if my understanding of what you want is correct etc.

So enjoy your 15 race schedule next year with slower cars, I'm sure you will see a gigantic spike in attendance and TV viewership.

Peace out, word to your motha!

Your demonstration of trying to understand our point is asking a ridiculous question about Indy Lights? Wow, I am impressed by your empathy. Don't pat yourself on the back so hard.

Gary

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page