"the sport is in an inflationary spiral

[indycool]

Crises occur. The Indianapolis 500 was not run during the two World Wars.

[Colin_Harvey]

Crises occur. The Indianapolis 500 was not run during the two World Wars.

That's not entirely true - races were held in 1915 and 1916 as well as in 1940 and 1941.

[indycool]

True. But not run in other years of the wars.

[Lousada]

That's not entirely true - races were held in 1915 and 1916 as well as in 1940 and 1941.

At that time the USA were not part of the war.

[chuck34]

There seems to an opinion that the act of putting in place new restrictive rules causes turmoil and racing would be great if people stopped trying to do that. That is not really it though. Your opinion is even at odds with the quote in your own signature. SOMEONE has to be in charge of setting what those rules are. Turmoil is caused by disagreements about who it is that is making those rules and what their agenda might be.

The idea that whoever wants the least restrictive rules must always be seen as "right" is a real problem in terms of it sabotages the credibility of whomever was proposing restricted rules. Thus racing becomes more and more "inflationary" and in turmoil. No particular mechanical rules are ever the real problem. That this thing called motor racing never really has a stable rulemaking body with credibility that people trust, is the real problem.

Been gone for a week so sorry to dig this back up.

I don't understand how what I said is in any way being at odds with my sig. Actually it proves my point. Every racer is trying to find the "Unfair Advantage". As the rules become ever more restrictive, the advantages become harder and harder to find. And thus, more expensive. So the way I see my comments and sig., they complement one another and prove both points.

[CCWS77]

The quote implies there will always be some kind of rules to limit things, racers will always try to find a way around them, and both these things are natural. Your statement seems to imply that ultimately it is useless to try and impose limiting rules and you wish people (such as the FIA?) would stop trying. That is very different, and IMHO a badly damaging blow by fans to the credibility of the sanction.

As the rules become ever more restrictive, the advantages become harder and harder to find. And thus, more expensive. So the way I see my comments and sig., they complement one another and prove both points.

Sure it becomes harder to find the advantage, meaning skill and talent are more important to find them as opposed to just opening the checkbook to get an advantage and attacking the problem with overwhelming manpower or technology. You can't really believe more restrictive rules raises costs?

[chuck34]

You can't really believe more restrictive rules raises costs?

Yes I can believe that. Does it cost more or less to field an IndyCar team today than it did 5-10 years ago?

[underpowered]

Yes I can believe that. Does it cost more or less to field an IndyCar team today than it did 5-10 years ago?

I'm fairly certain it cost less (infation adjusted) to field a car now. The problem is more likely the shortage of sponsorship dollars coming in.

[Chaparral66]

Brock Yates is the one who used to complain about drivers holding hands with their wives along pit lane. He is a very good writer and a passionate person, but often his content leaves a lot to be desired. I am not sure what he was referring to in 1970, but people like him don't react well to change and Indy Car racing was changing very fast at that time, from putting more into aerodynamics to full face helmets. Yates may have gotten the shaft from Car and Driver when he was ousted a few years back (ironically, so was the guy who fired him just recently, former editor Csaba Csere), but everytime I read something from him, I make sure I have a container of Morton's nearby.