Quote from TFalke55 :

Maybe an average team, but the Tenko car is built and prepared by 888 so the material is right. Also I don't know if the Erebus Mercedes is a top ride.

Tim Slade said that he expects the Mercs to struggle in 2013. So Erebus is probably a backmarker team atm. Which makes sense since the Mercs are very under-prepared right now.

However, the issue isn't whether moving to Tekno was the right decision but Shane did a sleeze-ball with SBR right now. Honestly it looks like he lied to everyone just to get out of driving a Merc. If the story is as true as it looks on the surface then I hope SvG struggles in 2013.

Surprised no one posted about Karthikeyan:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105286

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

However, this business model doesn't really work with permanent facilities. Understandably, they are there for turning a profit(or at least just trying not to lose money), and have to rely on spectators' money for it. And since they cannot exactly ask for F1-type price tickets, due to IndyCar's very small popularity in the US, it doesn't work in the end. Hence why we are looking at a 50+% street circuit schedule right now.

With that in mind, I don't think there's any way COTA can make money with IndyCar. IndyCar isn't very interested in COTA either, for the reasons Thilo listed(plus the fact that no matter the crowd, the huge grandstands would likely look very empty on race day, and IndyCar isn't very keen on that). Hence why there's no deal.


But at least, it's nice to see that Pro Mazda(formerly Star Mazda) will kick off their 2013 campaign on COTA in almost 4 weeks, as part of Grand-AM's support bill

I'm actually totally ok with IndyCar avoiding F1 tracks. I like IndyCar at Montreal or Interlagos but most Tilke tracks I can live without. Part of what makes IndyCar interesting is the weird tracks they race on

Quote from PMD9409 :

All I was saying is that aerokits aren't needed (not caring about the background of it with Randy), and the argument used with the whining is silly. Is it because of Randy? Most likely. But does that matter? Nope.

That is true... IndyCar does not technically actually need Aerokits I agree It's something that would be nice and would definitely help grow the popularity of IndyCar (which is still very low). But at the moment IndyCar does have a reasonably good product without the kits

Quote from PMD9409 :

You still explained why it is silly, and how the argument that guy used is silly.

I don't care if he promised a 900hp engines or a whole new chassis. It isn't the point. The point is that it isn't logical. Why even worry about aerokits?

Hey I'm not the only asking for Randy's head argue with trackforum lol.

Quote from PMD9409 :

It's the chassis' 1st year in a series that has funding issues apart from the 3 big teams. They've spent this year trying to cut costs, yet you want them to go and jack up costs by having to design/buy aerokits? And multiple aerokits on top of it. You are then saying that because they can't get it done by the 2nd year on the chassis that it won't ever happen with this chassis. Why not?

It's not the fact that they cant do it, it's more of the fact that IndyCar has been incredibly wishy-washy on their stances and issues. You can't go to a company, throw a business pitch, then end it with a guarantee then suddenly go back on it and go "whoops unforeseen circumstance folks but that's life oh well sorry you wasted your time or money". That's basically what USF1 did to FIA. Make grand promises to FIA when they really had no warrant to make those kind of promises.

Randy is not guilty of making a bad decision by denying aerokits. Anyone with common sense would make the decision to postpone aerokits. It's how Randy goes about making promises and guarantees he actually doesn't know he can keep and that's wishy washy and companies and corporations don't like wishy washy decision making. It would be a business risk to them, in fact more so on the fact that companies make aerokits at a loss.

Again, Randy has a habit of counting his chickens before they hatch... like China, which surprises me that he didn't talk to the mayor candidates and he didnt make sure that the contact he signed with the old mayor would hold after his term was up.

Quote from PMD9409 :

The whole argument seems like a 4 year old child asking for an iPhone when it obviously doesn't need it now and it's a waste of money. The child can wait and have it at the right time, and now isn't it.

There's really 2 arguments with the outrage over the aerokits. The first sentiment of "but he promised me and he went back on his word waaaaaaaa"... sure they are just fanboys acting like little kids that they didn't get what they want for christmas. But, Randy didn't just guarantee the fans, he guaranteed the companies and corporations making the aerokits and Chevy was suppose to have started on making the kits now as Honda was also in talks with Swift about a kit as well. Not to mention Oreca wanted an absolute solid date and timeline on aerokits so they can weigh in their budget to see if they can allow for aerokits. Randy gave the world, not just fans, the world a guarantee and he went back on it which would make people who actually matter think he doesn't really have any control over the series.

Remember Randy promising and guaranteeing the owners that the DW12 was going to be cheaper when it turned out that Randy turned out to be wrong? Exact same situation. I understand that Randy has a tough job where he needs to make IndyCar look like the land of rainbows and sunshine. He needs to keep being enthusiastic and hyped and happy about everything that's coming with IndyCar. But he needs to stop making promises and guarantees he really cant keep.

Piss off the fans... well that doesnt matter... piss off the owners and constructors (which he has pissed off the owners for similar reasons why he pissed off the fans interestingly enough) and IndyCar might as well just fold now.

Essentially... when the fans say "but he promised me and he went back on his word waaaaaaaa" you can just say shut up and grow up. But you can't say that to the team owners and constructors who would potentially be saying the same thing as the fans. Heck, the owners are already saying that about the perceived guarantee costs of the DW12. Can you imagine if Swift (Honda) or Oreca actually spent all that money to develop (because let's face it, you have to start very early) on Randy's guarantee of aerokits, then Randy saying "whoops sorry we've decided to postpone it for another year" when Oreca or Swift could have been doing something else with their time and budget (especially Oreca and their LMPs). Other corporations would see this and project their kit project to be too much of a risk to invest.... Remember IndyCar has already had problems convincing corporations to create kits to begin with. Throw in some inconsistent decision making and some wasted time/money developing kits that wont be allowed due to another postponed decision and you might as well just keep using the DW12.

Randy needs to plan everything out. See how long it takes for the series to be financially stable and present a business plan to Chevy, Swift (honda) and anyone else who signed up for a kit and say "alright guys, current economics are tough but based on this solid and well-researched plan, we will be financially stable to open up kits in 2015 so start projecting your kits for that goal" instead of this whole "next year, I promise, whoops nevermind no really next year I promise, whoops nevermind no really next year I promise...."

Last edited by lizardfolk, Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:28.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Think it was a good move. Whoever is "answering" in that article is pretty laughable.

But guys he promised it, "he must deliver!" Pretty funny.

I don't necessarily agree with the people calling for Randy's head over a broken promise. But the argument (especially over at trackforum where the majority of indycar internet fans visit) is that Randy flip flops on his issues way too much. The cowboy seems to get too eager and makes promises for things that he really has no guarantee over. His over anxiousness with China was a perfect example of this which is really weird that he fully announced the race without the promoters putting in a deposit or speaking to the new mayor candidates at the very least.

Saying that "Randy is the devil because he lied and he broke his promise" is silly. But you do have to admit that Randy has counted his chickens before they hatched and ran his mouth more than people would have liked.

The aerokits decision is a must. He can't force it. But he and ICONIC did back themselves into a corner when they guaranteed everyone everything without really making sure they can deliver. Again, the aero diversity was one of the key selling points of the new chassis. Just a shame they can only meet their goals half way (which tbh isn't exactly such an unattainable goal).

Personally I think this decision solidifies the fact that Indy will only have 1 aerokits for the rest of this chassis's life. I mean think about it. Indycar already asked for corps to start applying and designing aerokits and they apparently had 3 takers and now suddenly the plug is pulled again. Do you think future companies will now invest in a program so shaky for such little to no profit? If lets say Oreca spent this year planning for an aerokits and now they recieved word that it isn't going to happen why would they come back to design one next year with the DW12 gettin more and more stable and development and waste all that money with little chance of real success? Companies were already hesitent on investing in kits. Two decision to postpone it means the companies will now be even less prone to committing. Too expensive, too shaky, and indycar's too indecisive. No we'll be lucky to even get 1 differet aero kit by 2014 I imagine. Obviously this is rather grim view of the situation... Maybe I've been on trackforum for too long....

Well... Atleast the DW12 is a better car than the IR03. But damn we'll just see the same kits over and over again. Let's hope I'm wrong and in 2014 we'll have colorful range of cars (is it bad that this sounds like a pipedream to me already?)

Last edited by lizardfolk, Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:21.

Unofficial but looks very reliable... No aerokits in 2013:

http://blogs.indystar.com/raci ... oit-gp-mis-and-milwaukee/

Utterly dejected. So much for ICONIC's diversity selling point

Quote from tinvek :

i'd hope that over a few years the oval content goes back up once the post wheldon hysteria fades away, it's the oval / road mix that makes indy car so unique

Don't worry Randy has said that he actually wants to maintain a 50/50 schedule as best he can. Right now not a lot of ovals want IndyCar at the moment as most oval racing attendance have been very low. (18k at Loudon... I think more people goes to GP2 races...)

But as soon as IndyCar gets into a more stable financial situation, you can expect the ovals to return. What Randy does is he actually pays to rent the track to host IndyCar. It's what he did with Vegas and he might do that with Milwaukee if Milwaukee can't get a title sponsor. The problem is, if Randy just pays out of IndyCar's pocket for 3-4 oval races the series would be instantly bankrupt. The best situation would be, of course, if the ovals want to come on their own. But Randy is aware that ovals are important to the American Open Wheel culture

I would like to agree with PMD, I would want IndyCar to go to the smaller ovals. I don't mind Indy and Texas being on the list but I'd rather see the rest of the ovals be much smaller and require much more right foot input.

BTW thanks for sharing my OP Yann

http://espn.go.com/racing/indy ... eaving-ovals-hurt-indycar

Hmmm interesting perspective...

http://indiana.sbnation.com/ra ... that-indycar-should-leave

Quote :

"I don't think Jimmie Johnson knows what he's talking about. He's never drove one, and he's pretty stupid to make a statement like that. You could say the same about stock cars. I've drove both, and I've been hurt real bad in both."

Thank you Mario and AJ...

Quote from PMD9409 :

Also, you might want to read Johnson's POV again, because you keep jumping to conclusions of people/situations without comprehending them. Yes, Johnson said no more ovals, but he said with the tracks and cars at their current state. "I have never went 225mph in my life, and they average it". After changes that IndyCar should make, those cars would be no where near that. You need to comprehend something before criticizing it.

"I wouldn't run them on ovals. There's just no need to," said Johnson, whose five championships give him a bit more knowledge of racing than your average fan. "Those cars are fantastic for street circuits, for road courses. I hate, hate, hate that this tragedy took place. But hopefully they can learn from it and make those cars safer on ovals somehow ... Myself, I have a lot of friends that race in that series, and I'd just rather see them on street circuits and road courses. No more ovals."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar ... ong-on-?urn=nascar-wp4612

I didn't read anywhere in that article that JJ said "the cars currently doesn't belong on ovals" he said "IndyCar doesn't belong on ovals". Which is a complete blanket statement against oval IndyCar racing. Would he support IndyCar going to ovals if the cars are slower/safer/less downforce? Great... where is that stated in the article? Also if that was the case then what was the point of that article.

The current Dallara chassis is already obsolete. IndyCar's decision to get rid of the old car was made a long time ago before Dan died. "IndyCar in its current form is not safe on ovals". Duh? Isn't that why they are getting rid of the old Dallara? So what's the point of making those kinds of statements to begin with if the old chassis was intended to be scrapped anyway? Unless you want to see IndyCar just move completely away from ovals. Which is what I inferred.

It reads to me that JJ is calling for IndyCar to be road circuit only series. (he flat out stated that he feels that way anyway). That extreme reaction to Dan's death is unnecessary.

Quote from PMD9409 :

So you agree with us, cool, about time. Did you read Fernandez? Did you notice he said people were worried before the race as well? Or is he lying too and just saying that after the fact?

You really contradicted yourself posting that article, just saying.

I agree that the old Dallara is horrid for oval racing in terms of safety. I agree that if IndyCar was still using that old chassis they should stay away from ovals. I agree that oval pack racing should stop in IndyCar. Do I agree that IndyCar should always and unconditionally stay away from ovals? No. Do I think these things are going to be fixed with the new chassis? Yes. Which is why I do not agree with the blanket statement that "IndyCar should stay away from ovals". Since we're not discussing that old chassis (as there's no point since Vegas was its last race), and we're discussing the (theoretically) newer, better, and safer chassis, I disagree that IndyCar should stay away from ovals in general with their new car. Maybe Superspeedways still need to be off the schedule. Sure, but saying that "IndyCar doesn't belong on ovals" is too simplistic, and extreme of an attitude

Quote from PMD9409 :

Yeah it is called go off the ovals until you can build proper cars that have better specs for oval racing. If you can't prevent cars from going completely airborne (freakin Will power is close to 15 feet above the track) then sorry, you shouldn't be racing there.

Which is what they are doing... are we still talking about IndyCar with the old Dallara? What evidence is there that the new ICONIC chassis is going to be as or more unsafe as the old Dallara? So why shouldn't IndyCar run on ovals again?

Quote from Mustafur :

The thing is Iowa is an oval and was probably the best race of the season. Infact the road courses where quite dull due to the dallara, at sonoma it could barely do the corners.

I agree the race at Iowa was absolutely fantastic and Kentucky had such a great finish. In fact, the most boring races this season in IndyCar was at Baltimore, Sonoma, and Motegi Road. Yeah sure... the results mattered but the racing actually really sucked. There was so little passing since the massive old Dallara uses up so much track.

In fact, despite the horrid attendance, the IndyCar oval races has been some of the most exciting this season so I'm not sure where the whole "Indy is so much better on road courses" come from. Based on what I've seen the racing on the road has been fairly boring

Last edited by lizardfolk, Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:32.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Seems you are the one over reacting with that post lol. High banked superspeedways should essentially be gone. Not much enjoyment watching cars go flat out for 200 laps with one touch being able to destroy many cars. Sure, short tracks would be nice, but as you said yourself the short tracks are not resigning, so wouldn't that mean no more ovals? You are the one that said short tracks are not wanting to be a part, yet you act like they can just create events at those tracks.

So every single oval that's not superspeedways is completely absolutely unconditionally against IndyCar? Even foreign ovals? Yes, superspeedways should go but that doesn't mean that we should just give up on IndyCar oval racing and just call it quits.

If short tracks dont want indy put in effort to try to change that. If High banked superspeedways are the only ovals willing, do something to make them safer. We shouldn't just give up on IndyCar oval racing as Jimmie Johnson put it that's the attitude I'm bashing. Maybe IndyCar oval racing is at a point of no return and it will die out. I'm not saying it wont. But the attitude that "oh we should just make it a road series and not put any more thought into the oval aspect of IndyCar" is specifically what I'm posting against and it is Johnson's attitude

BTW great article: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-oval-madness/

EDIT: Randy: "I can tell you I see the value in ovals more than the purists of the sport," Bernard said Thursday. "If we want more great American drivers, we have to have a balanced series. I'm not giving up on ovals, but I can't do bad deals. For now, we also have to make wise business decisions. We may have a take a step backward [off ovals] to accomplish our long-term goals on ovals."

Last edited by lizardfolk, Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:48.

Quote from NSX_FReeDoM :

Am I the only one who finds all these racing drivers who are now saying "Vegas was a recipe for disaster" quite annoying?

I am sorry but if you think Vegas is such a dangerous track then why didn't you do something about it before? From what I have read, this track has been filled accidents over the years. Why wait til someone get killed to say it?!

It's hindsight 20/20 at its best. Although to be fair there were a few drivers who did voice concerns but a large number of the people criticizing IndyCar are doing it now when something has happened rather than before

Really? IndyCar is THAT dangerous on ovals that it needs to stop going to ovals in general? So IndyCar at Phoenix would be a deathtrap? Or Milwaukee Mile? Or New Hampshire Speedway? Or Richmond? Yes lets condemn all of Dan Wheldon's favorite type of racing just because two categories (speedways and superspeedways) can lead to dangerous situations? Because IndyCar unacceptably dangerous on Texas and Las Vegas must mean that IndyCar is equally as dangerous on Richmond or Martinsville right?

Honest, this type of overreation is what kills motorsports at times. Yes, something must be done so Dan Wheldon incidents don't repeat. But must we really make IndyCar the American GP2 just for that? Would IndyCar at Richmond or Iowa be so infinitely more dangerous than IndyCar at Sonoma? Wasn't someone seriously injured at Sonoma too? Oh hey, lets ban road courses with blind corners now. Cause that's not an overreaction at all. No sir.

I mean isn't IndyCar building a new oval in China just for the series? I feel like IndyCar can find a new home in foreign ovals although I'm not so sure Eurospeedway would be that much of a better choice in terms of safety since that is another superspeedway

Yes the ancient Dallara needs to go for sure and fortunately that decision was made a long time ago. It was just a shame the chassis overstayed its welcome by just one race Again, improvements were already made with the ICONIC chassis. I'm with you guys that superspeedways need to go but oval open wheel racing in general is fine.

Also I agree with Thilo. It's very fortunate this accident didn't claim more lives. Will Power flew and Pippa Mann did a barrel roll into the wall and it's lucky bystandards weren't killed either (Jeff Krosnoff's crash)

Quote from PMD9409 :

2. You must have missed the crowd at Vegas? Kentucky wasn't that packed either. They didn't even race at Chicagoland this year, Texas had probably the only good crowd, but it was 2 races in one. Iowa was straight packed, and it is a short track. Milwaukee isn't going to pay what IndyCar or NASCAR wants to run a race, that is their main reason for pulling out, same with IRP and NASCAR.

3. If IndyCar was anywhere near CART, then getting those races wouldn't be a problem. IndyCar now is much much different than CART. CART had cars that were not all aero. You needed much more mechanical grip, which not every team could find, which seperated the field quite a bit. That's why you have races like this, this, and this.




The change for IndyCar doesn't have to do with only Dan. When the cars were updated in the early 2000s, and speeds increased with grip, it provided many more dangerous situations. Kenny Brack's crash should have turned them away from it, but it continued. More than a handful have been seriously injured due to these "superspeedways". That's more than other top level series by miles. That lies the problem. You can say "well only one gets seriously injured each year", and I'll not only call BS, but ask why one would even be okay? Why cause that much risk for not much reward in the end?

I'm sure teams wouldn't mind the change either. Nothing like saving 1-2 cars each season.

I never said the superspeedways were the most profitable races ever for indycar. But the numbers are better with superspeedways than in shorter ovals (although admittedly Iowa numbers were decent which is why they are returning). Bernard has already stated that his oval choices are tied down because there's quite a lot of ovals that do not want anything to do with IndyCar anymore due to their low attendance and only the superspeedways are still willing

Also yes, the Dallara was too dangerous. But we're not using the Dallara anymore, is there evidence that the new ICONIC car is as or more dangerous? Whats wrong with running the ICONIC car on smaller flat ovals like Phoenix or Iowa?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Texas is just as dangerous as Las Vegas. Keep it to flat tracks and you're probably mitigating the risks enough.

Agreed and to be honest, I wouldn't complain if Chicagoland leaves to. I want less superspeedways in Indy. I just think removing ALL oval racing in IndyCar is an overreaction and slightly insulting to Dan's memory since Dan loved IndyCar oval racing

Quote from DieKolkrabe :

No, it isn't anywhere close to reclaiming the CART oval magic. Having side by side racing all race is not magic. It's smoke and mirrors. The IRL cannot reclaim Indy 89 or Indy 92 (though it tried with 2006), or Michigan in 92, 94, 99 or 2000. It cannot reclaim California 97, or Gil's blistering qualy lap in 2000, or the race.

It is a long, long, LONG way from that.

Not really... the new oval car looks pretty good to try to bring back some Indy oval magic. Also... have you noticed that the tracks you cited with "great racing" are all superspeedways? Heck didn't they use the Hanford device at Michigan and the cars were topping 226 MPH.

I hate to say it guys but this whole "superspeedway should never be there" attitude is pure 20/20 hindsight. I mean come on. Motorsport fans applauded the Hanford device back in CART for godsake.

Of course this doesn't mean I disagree with the lot of you. Superspeedways should be limited to Indy and Texas or maybe Chicagoland. Fontana doesn't need to be there and Las Vegas sure as heck didn't need to be there. But do not condemn all of oval racing just because of a small group of unsuitable ovals and Dan's death. It's disrespectful to Dan's memory since ovals were one of his most favorite venues in IndyCar

Quote from PMD9409 :

2. Oval races get no attendence in IndyCar because they suck to watch. Superspeedways are the worst. They go single file most of the race nose to tail, and then with 20 laps to go start going side by side flat out. Whoever has the most push to passes at the end wins. That isn't racing. A short track at least you have to let off the gas in corners. If they can only find 2 small ovals and the Indy500, I won't be disappointed. If anything it would increase attendence because there are a smaller number of them.

3. Why does oval racing in IndyCar have poor attendence yet the road racing does not? Because the road racing is better. It's the only form of top level single seater racing here in the US. Ovals (other than Indy) never should have became apart of it in the first place.

2. Except that the ovals that get the most attendance actually ARE the superspeedways... have you ever wondered why there's a reason behind the fact that IndyCar can only get ovals like Las Vegas and Fontana? Because for some reason superspeedways get more attendance over tracks like Iowa or Milkwaukee Mile or NHS. Which baffles me because, according to you (and you are right), racing sucks on superspeedways. But it doesn't on tracks that are shorter (the Iowa race was one of the best oval races I've ever seen). Yet people ignore that and just put in money on the superspeeedways.

3. Ovals should have never been a part of it? Umm... so what about CART? Which is what IndyCar is trying to do. Bernard said he wanted more CART tracks like Phoenix, NHS, and Milwaukee Mile on the schedule as well as returning to a lot of former CART tracks like Cleveland, Belle Isle (successful), and Reliant Park. You can't honestly say that CART wasn't successful in both oval and road course racing and IndyCar as a league in 1996 started with the idea that top tier open wheel oval racing should never die. Indy has always raced on massive amounts of ovals and I'm sorry to say but Dan's death isn't really that outstanding.

Sure Las Vegas was a stupid decision to include but did people forget about Paul Dana back in Homestead? Or Tony Renna at Indianapolis? Greg Moore at Fontana? Why don't you just ban motorsports forever then...

I agree with you that superspeedways NEED to be limited to just Indy and maybe Texas or Chicagoland (great track for IndyCar). But saying that, Dan's death proves that IndyCar needs to go away from ovals is an overreaction. If you look at it from a big picture perspective from when CART was in it's glory years, nothing that's happened so far is really that shocking tbh. I mean what did people do after Paul Dana's death? Oh yeah... they still raced at Homestead...

IndyCar on ovals can provide great oval racing just as CART and early champcar races on ovals were fantastic to watch. IndyCar has a chance to reclaim that CART oval magic and it's very close to doing so.

Quote from Bmxtwins :

There are some tracks that are fine for Indy racing. Vegas is definately not one of them. IMO if they wanted to try a new(er) venue, shouldve stuck with Motegi oval and done Las Vegas road course.

I thought it was Motegi that ended the deal not IndyCar? I mean IndyCar can't be picky with their ovals cause they are barely getting any buyers as it is already. Bernard has already said that his perfect schedule would see IndyCar at Phoenix, New Hampshire, and Milwaukee Mile so I highly doubt the officials really wanted an all superspeedway line up for their schedule.

Sorry but you just have to face the facts that no oval wants indycar anymore save for maybe a few superspeedways and one or two foreign ovals (they are possibly building one in China for 2013)

No I'm pretty sure (short of the 500 that is) IndyCar Oval racing is already doomed. I mean IndyCar was already having a hard time getting ovals to agree to sign them on because the oval promoters just lost too much money hosting indycar races. Thats why the milkwaukee mile and NHS have pulled out after this season...

Again, the only ovals interested in them are places like Texas, Fontana, and Las Vegas... and we've already seen what happens at superspeedways. IndyCar either can keep the current schedule but be blamed for ignoring Wheldon's death... or they will become an all road course series... which would suck cause we already have enough road course open wheel series everywhere... But that's where they are heading unfortunately

Quote from DieKolkrabe :

Just throwing this out there, I'm seeing 'have Indycar use restrictor plates' being thrown around.

No. Indy is not NASCAR. That if anything will make the pack racing worse, not better. If you got 34 cars strung out in clumps of two or three, any wreck will involve less cars than having a huge pack restrictor plate style.

I hate to say it, but it's only a matter of time before it happens again with the current style of racing, the pack NEEDS to be spread out more. Get rid of the spec formula, hopefully the 2012 package will allow for performance differences.

PMD hit it on the nose when he said they need to be running on different tracks but the tracks that are most optimal for IndyCar safety do not want IndyCar anymore.... NHS was at one point glad to have IndyCar but they've only managed to get 28k spectators (which is a joke btw... NASCAR gets around 98k). Now NHS couldn't stay farther away from IndyCar.

I hear they are building a 1.5m oval in China for 2013... I guess foreign ovals are the only place left... But Eurospeedway can be just as dangerous (Zanardi).

Honestly I'm personally distressed at the fact that IndyCar might become just a road racing series with maybe 1 or 2 ovals but Dan Wheldon's death can't be ignored i guess. Just wish there was more interest in the IndyCar oval races... If IndyCar just started running on shorter, slower, ovals this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place but unfortunately (and strangely) the only ovals that wants IndyCar are the superspeedways....

Quote from PMD9409 :

There's many other tracks to go to: Iowa, Richmond, Phoenix, Gateway, Indy, Milwaukee, NHMS. Heck, I'd even rather see IRP or Martinsville over the tracks like Michigan, Texas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Fontana, Kentucky, Chicagoland, and even Pocono.

Sometimes it isn't about fixing the car, it's about fixing where you race at. F1 has got much safer due to where they race. And eventhough we are talking about ovals, it doesn't make much difference. If a driver wants to keep racing those superspeedways, go jump into NASCAR. That is honestly the only place they belong.

Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't IndyCar having a hard time getting oval races in general? I'm sure if Bernard had his way he would have the cars at (or back at) New Hampshire, Phoenix, Milwaukee Mile and smaller ovals like those. But unfortunately (as we've seen from ticket sales and the recent removal of NHS) tracks like those no longer want IndyCar there as the attendance is atrocious.

I think at this point it's either accept the ovals that are still willing to have IndyCar (ironically many of them SuperSpeedways by IndyCar's definition) or just have no ovals at all... I was once adamantly against the removal of ovals from the IndyCar schedule but Wheldon's death forced me to rethink my position.

At the same time it would be a terrible shame to see IndyCar become an all road course series... I use to think having most of the ovals as superspeedway was a small sacrifice to maintain a nice 50/50 schedule but it seems that probably isn't a very realistic ideal to follow...

Either way, I think IndyCar is done when it comes to ovals (not necessarily because they want to avoid them but because they can't really afford to be picky with whatever ovals they can get...)

Quote from PMD9409 :

They don't promote wrecking, they promote the drivers to show their true personalities. If that means contact, than so be it. If its dangerous or detrimental to the sport, then it will be penalized.

Ummm... really? Last I remembered Carl Edwards was only given a "probation" for his stunt with Keselowski. I think what mustafur is trying to say is that this "hands-off no matter what" approach is going to have someone get so mad that they will turn around and drive backwards to wreck someone and even then NASCAR won't do anything because that's still "boys being boys".

Quote from PMD9409 :

It's been around the sport for years, so bringing it up now is a mute point.
Dale / Rusty
Darrell / Rusty
Dale / Rusty
Dale / Bill
Dale / Rudd
Gordon / Kenseth
Mikey / Robby

List goes on.

You obviously might have a better opinion than me in terms of american stock car racing and I've only started watching nascar seriously around 2003. However, I seem to remember penalties like drive through and (in some extreme cases) parking for revenge wrecking. Like when Robbie Gordon got pissed at Ambrose and turned him around? NASCAR took away his win. Also there were cases where NASCAR even penalized for rude driving. Like remember when Tony Stewart was penalized for (accidentally but very sloppily) taking out Bowyer and Edwards? He didn't listen to his spotter and side-swiped Bowyer and that in turn sent Bowyer into Edwards. (I think this was at an Indy race but I dont quite remember the specific date of this incident)

Again, I dont mind the roughness of NASCAR. But back in the early to mid 2000s NASCAR did atleast have a line that the drivers shouldn't cross and they enforced it. This new attitude is basically "hands off no matter what" and with that a driver can pretty much make up any BS excuse to be butthurt and wreck people.

Sorry but Tony's excuse for wrecking Vickers was hilarious. "I dumped him cause he was blocking." Yeah... so blocking is a dumpable offense to the drivers? Really? Isn't blocking a part of racing? I think my LFS league results would be a lot better if I just start dumping everyone who's successful at blocking me and keeping me behind...

Regarding "antagonists", what I think mustafur is trying to say is NASCAR forcing unnatural antagonists. For example, who is the antagonist in F1? Who is the antagonist in V8 Supercar? Who is the antagonist in IndyCar? The answers to those questions will vary extremely from person to person because the organizing sport doesn't stick their hands in inter-driver drama or... if there isn't any, the sport doesn't force the drama. I've been told that NASCAR actually wants Tony to spin people because he's the designated "villain".

There is no established drama in F1, V8 Supercar, Indy or practically everything else. NASCAR technically (and officially) doesn't, but there's occasional hints that NASCAR implemented the "boys be boys" policy to just boost inter-driver drama because... well frankly NASCAR is losing their ratings and they need to do something to try to curb that loss. What mustafur is predicting is that NASCAR would start asking the drivers to act out more and to cause/force more inter-driver drama. For example, they (hypothetical WWEized NASCAR) would pay Tony 10 grand more to spin a couple of random people out get them pissed and they fight at the end of the race. Or maybe have Kyle Busch make sexists comments towards Danica. Or crap like that. All that is what mustafur means by NASCAR becoming the WWE of racing. Their "boys will be boys" was purely for the purpose of creating more spark and inter-driver drama rather than to better the racing or to make the championship more legitimate. It's always about the "show" not the "racing".

In all honestly, I wouldn't be complaining if NASCAR just flat out admitted that their sport is purely an entertainment show rather than a sport that preserves the integrity of pure racing. Because allowing revenge wrecking does not make for a legitimate championship.

Last edited by lizardfolk, Fri, 1 Jul 2011 03:46.