New car news!!

[chuck34]

Is that what was happening prior to the last track record? Cause prior to the last track record they were allowed to race to infinity and beyond.

Really? They never reduced the wing size prior to '96? They never reduced the tunnel size prior to '96? They never reduced the allowable boost prior to '96? They never reduced engine displacement prior to '96? Heck they never outlawed wheel coverings either? You are seriously going to stake out the position that IndyCars have never been slowed down? That there have never been rules put in place specifically to slow them down?

You are serious when you say "they were allowed to race to infinity and beyond"?

[chuck34]

So clearly you don't understand my point of view!

Please enlighten me/us. It sure seems that you have been saying over and over again that you want faster speeds, all else be damned especially safety. If that is not your point of view, please do explain it in a rational, reasonable, and calm way.

[zzatz]

Hey Sarahfan, maybe these guys are all right, maybe we should slow the cars down....

Who are these guys that you are talking about? I've haven't seen anyone advocate slowing the cars down. You're either arguing with imaginary people, or misrepresenting what real people actually said.

What I am saying is that speed is only one part of racing. When I look at the problems that IndyCar racing has in attracting sponsors and fans, "the cars are too slow" is not at the top of the list. It's not even at the bottom of the list. It doesn't make the list at all. It's not a problem right now. Current speeds are fast enough. They don't need to go down, and they don't need to go up.

What does need to change? What works? The answers are the same for all sports: recognizable stars, connection with a team, rivalries, thrilling competition.

Fans won't follow drivers, won't consider them like other sports heroes, unless the driver plays a bigger role in the results. That means ending pack racing, ending 100% throttle racing. Watching cars follow each is boring. Watching one driver pass another by going deeper into a turn is exciting. That means that the rules and the tracks need to ensure that the drivers need to lift going into turns. Similarly, the driver who gets back into the throttle too soon needs to suffer - preferably something visible, like getting twitchy or sideways, but at least pushing offline or spinning tires. The driver's control of the car should have visible results.

Connecting with a team is more difficult. Other sports have teams connected to a city. But we do have teams, we used to have different manufacturers, and we're getting back to different engine makers. NASCAR built itself on a Ford vs Chevy rivalry. Every F1 race in my lifetime has brought out Ferarri fans, win or lose. IndyCars needs that sort of rivalry. It may be some time before the economics improve enough to allow multiple chassis, but I hope we get there someday.

Better competition: that's what most of us have been focusing on, and trying to get you to admit that it's competition between cars on the track on the same day that matters, not this year versus last year. One driver leading the whole race, with everyone else following in a line, is boring. Even if he goes faster than last year! If that's the kind of racing you like, go to Bonneville: one car at a time against the clock. I don't care about the clock, I care about one driver outdriving, outracing the other drivers. Driving and racing aren't the same. That's why I never like Danica, among others. She's a good driver in that given a good car, properly set up, she can circle the track with good lap times. But she's a lousy racer. She's poor at passing, poor at taking advantage of the mistakes of others, poor at sensing when to move in for the kill. In other words, boring to watch. Marco, again among others, is the other extreme. He's too willing to move in for kill, pouncing when he should be stalking. At least that's more exciting to watch, if infuriating.

So, why are dodging my question? Should IndyCars go to bodywork that covers the wheels? It could make the cars faster. It could lead to lower lap times. You've said that you want faster cars, so I assume that you want IndyCars to look like LeMans cars.

I can live with the current speeds. I can live with higher speeds if it can be done safely. I can live with lower, but not much lower, speeds if it results in better racing. See, I want more competition, not more speed. Bonneville is all about speed, going faster than last year. When you have a bunch of cars on the track at the same time, it's about beating the other guy. Lap times from previous years may be useful, but they're tools, not the goal. The goal is to be the first across the finish line THIS year.

[DBell]

Why can't it be the third option? That the speeds are fairly safe right where they are now, 220-230 at Indy, but any faster becomes dangerous. So let's keep the speeds where they are, or there about, a little slower this year could very well (and most likely will) become a little faster next year. And at the same time make the racing better, by bringing the driver back into the equation, and eliminating pack racing.

Why can't this be an option? Because that's not what Indycar is about anymore. They are trying to do the Nascar approach where everyone has the same car that is regulated to the hilt. Any advantage one of the engine makers come up with will be quickly neutered so it doesn't have an advantage over the others. This has already happened from what I've read. Lotus claims their engine is 20 pounds lighter than the other 2. IndyCar has already said that they will have to add 20 pounds of ballast to compensate. IndyCar has also stated that the engines will have the same amount of HP. Going back to the chassis, the specs are set with no development allowed except possibly different wing packages in the future. So I don't see how your scenario is going to happen. I could accept your scenario if that were the case, but from what I've read from IndyCar, that isn't what they are trying to do. I see this year as the same as last year, just with a newer car.

You can argue with Ken and Loneranger on the merits of speed and track records, but I think they are clearly right about this- what IndyCar is doing now will do nothing to attract a bigger audience. No more than the DP-01 did anything for CC other than give it a new car that was around the same performance level as the one it replaced.

If we are trying new slogans for IndyCar, then how about this? "IndyCar - same as it ever was"

[DBell]

I have to ask this. Why do some think that the currant car is going to be the end of pack racing? It's going to have less HP on ovals, everyone is going to have the same car, and all indications are it's going to be every bit the momentum car as the last one was. I don't see this as package that is going to end pack racing.

[Loneranger]

Please enlighten me/us. It sure seems that you have been saying over and over again that you want faster speeds, all else be damned especially safety. If that is not your point of view, please do explain it in a rational, reasonable, and calm way.

[YOUTUBE]hE4vdzM6PHA[/YOUTUBE]

[BDunnell]

You can argue with Ken and Loneranger on the merits of speed and track records, but I think they are clearly right about this- what IndyCar is doing now will do nothing to attract a bigger audience. No more than the DP-01 did anything for CC other than give it a new car that was around the same performance level as the one it replaced.

I fail to see why any of this matters, to be honest. Other formulae undergo significant change — take F1 in recent years — without any diminution in the audience. Maybe the mentality of said audience is, in part, what's at fault.

[Loneranger]

I have to ask this. Why do some think that the currant car is going to be the end of pack racing? It's going to have less HP on ovals, everyone is going to have the same car, and all indications are it's going to be every bit the momentum car as the last one was. I don't see this as package that is going to end pack racing.

You are right it makes no sense what so ever, but these guys all seem to think it is the solution. Go figure. Makes you wonder who you are actually conversing with........actually, no it doesn't, I already know who I am conversing with!

If I understand these guys, which unless somebody is going to come in here and say point blank I am wrong and explain to me how I am wrong, these guys want to see a car that you have to lift off the throttle instead of being able to drive flat out through a corner. It's like these guys only seem to think there is one race track next year that we are talking about when in actuality there are only what? Three ovals next year, so for the rest of the year, their flat out scenario doesn't apply.

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

I would love to hear how they propose you accomplish that.

[BDunnell]

You are right it makes no sense what so ever, but these guys all seem to think it is the solution. Go figure. Makes you wonder who you are actually conversing with........actually, no it doesn't, I already know who I am conversing with!

If I understand these guys, which unless somebody is going to come in here and say point blank I am wrong and explain to me how I am wrong, these guys want to see a car that you have to lift off the throttle instead of being able to drive flat out through a corner. It's like these guys only seem to think there is one race track next year that we are talking about when in actuality there are only what? Three ovals next year, so for the rest of the year, their flat out scenario doesn't apply.

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

I would love to hear how they propose you accomplish that.

I have come to the conclusion that your earlier promise to leave this discussion was what is known as a 'flounce'.

[Loneranger]

I have come to the conclusion that your earlier promise to leave this discussion was what is known as a 'flounce'.

So you really can't read and really don't understand........I said my conversation with YOU was done!

I'm done with this conversation as far as you are concerned.