Comments on: First It Was Boring. Now It’s Insane??

By: Damon

Damon — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:40:28 +0000

You can’t throw a blanket over all the 1.5 mile ovals the way Miller does because they all race differently.

Sure, you have your 1.5 milers than tend to favor more pack racing like Texas generally does (not this year, obviously) and Chicago, but Kansas hasn’t had a pack-type race since 2005, Homestead is always strung out, Motegi is a full-mileage race and Kentucky certainly isn’t a pack-track, but a good track for having a good car, passing people without having to run side by side lap after lap and getting to the front.

I also wished the drivers realized this too before speaking out about the closeness of the racing.

By: Trick Dickle

Trick Dickle — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:58:59 +0000

“One of the guys at MyNameIsIRL reminded us that the old IRL was like it was the last two ovals week-in and week-out yet the ratings were no better.”

Have you seen the ratings lately? They are so microscopicly small, you might not have. Those days, saw 1.0′s for ratings. Now, we don’t get to 1.0 total, if you add 4 races ratings together. And back in those days (when the racing WAS better) and more teams actually had a prayer of winning, the races were actually still on a network people GET and WATCH. Now, its on some two-buck minor league network, bleeding money, with a product that NObody cares about.

By: H. B. Donnelly

H. B. Donnelly — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:59:42 +0000

We’ve already HAD a “Big One”. It was at Michigan in 2007 when six cars crashed at the front of the field. There was also a big, multi-car wreck at Indianapolis that same year. Last time an Indy Car hit a catch fence was, I believe, Briscoe’s incident in 2005, while NASCAR had a catch fence hit this year. Yet the supposedly knowledgeable types call NASCAR’s plate races “exciting”, while the IRL is “suicidal”.

Thing is, these aero changes needed to happen. When the leaders get stuck behind lapped cars for 30 laps on a track that’s supposed to emphasize handling, you know there’s a problem. Less downforce/more horses seems like a good idea, but they’ll need to add a few hundred pounds to the cars or there will be more flying cars than there have been with the current formula.

By: Leigh O'Gorman

Leigh O'Gorman — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:32:20 +0000

Regarding the Hanford Device in CART, if I remember correctly its introduction had an awful lot to do with slowing the cars down, rather than artificially enhancing the race – don’t forget the CART cars were beginning to hit 240mph when it was introduced, so from that point of view it was a good thing.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:23:44 +0000

Bleacher Report isn’t a mainstream media source. It is in fact the exact opposite. It’s more wiki-style where anyone can submit an article on any sports topic. Ergo, the people who write there do not necessarily have to be knowledgeable and informed. I have an account there and thought of writing some stuff, but never got around to it.

Having said that, I somewhat agree with both Christensen and Miller. I prefer ovals where drivers have to lift and am extremely disappointed that Indy and Iowa will be the only ones left. We’ve lost Walt Disney World, Pikes Peak, Gateway, Richmond, and most importantly Loudon, Phoenix, Nazareth, and Milwaukee. I prefer this type of oval because it has more to do with driver, while 1.5-mile ovals are pretty much aerodynamic exercises. I will grant that since the addition of the push-to-pass button the driver probably plays a greater role than before (at least knowing when to push, which Briscoe seems to be a natural at, and others not so much.)

I don’t like the danger factor of the 1.5-2 mile ovals and I do see them as more dangerous than 1-1.5 mile ovals, but Chicagoland, Texas, and Michigan have proven they belong on the schedule. Kansas, Homestead, Kentucky, and Motegi I’m not nearly so enthusiastic about as I don’t believe they are the best ovals that could be on the schedule. Granted, several of the other ovals I listed are effectively dead. I understand the racing is closer, but sometimes I felt the IRL circa 2002 was too much of a good thing. I’d rather see a balance of ovals rather than all 1.5-2 mile ovals. It’s a form that should be recognized, but there are too many and too few of other kinds of ovals which I see as superior. Granted, it’s not IndyCar’s fault all those were lost (except Loudon, which they keep denying…)

The push-to-pass I do see as a gimmick (and I did in Champ Car as well, and I also saw CART’s Hanford device as a gimmick). Still, I suppose it’s better than the alternative: single-file parades that are effectively decided by who has the most “cubic dollars” that would be 1-2-3-4 Penske-Ganassi finishes unless one of the cars crashes.

By: PC

PC — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:42:13 +0000

I don’t get any of this. The two most popular forms of racing in the world consist of A) F1 – traditionally zero lead changes, lapping the field, no safety cars to pack up the field, boring, boring, boring (but awesome) and B) NASCAR – with racing often compared to the WWE – artificially close, contrived, overly-micro-managed specs and rules (on a team by team techinical basis), etc. One of the guys at MyNameIsIRL reminded us that the old IRL was like it was the last two ovals week-in and week-out yet the ratings were no better. Exciting or not, it IS another Brack, Briscoe, or Hamilton waiting to happen.

This is just like ovals vs. road courses, Americans vs. foreigners, Vs. vs. ESPN. Everything is the one thing that makes no one care about our sport. What the IRL is missing in all of this is a clear vision, leadership, and direction. Its all a balance, and we are severely out of balance. Give me the racing we have had lately and I am glued to the TV, but I have no respect for the technical rules and believe that the results are too much just luck. This isn’t the way racing should be. This is NASCAR – get people who don’t give a crap about the sport tuning in to watch for the big one – great our ratings might go up. I would gladly trade this close racing for a diverse mix of tracks with history, a car that is half-way technically interesting, a full field of drivers that belong at the top level, regardless of nationality, leadership, a bright future, etc…

By: redd

redd — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:55:03 +0000

If more hp, less downforce would make for safe, exciting races and reward driver’s skills, then I’m all for that.

And sorry if I’m repeating myself, but it seems to me that all racing is contrived to some extent isn’t it? The technical requirements set by each governing body are “artificial,” so the question is do you set limits that lead to fast, exciting races or set requirements that lead to boring, slow races?

By: The American Mutt

The American Mutt — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:39:35 +0000

I got that out of the Robin Miller article as well. I also took his desire to go to say Milwaukee over Chicago to stem, not from fear, but from a desire to see a “Drivers” oval. It seemed he is more interested in seeing the drivers, for lack of a better way of saying it, take a more active role on the ovals. Make it less about the car, and more about what the driver can do other than hold down the accelerator and hope he’s in a red car. I can get behind that.

By: The Speedgeek

The Speedgeek — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:30:22 +0000

I’m with Robin on the “more horsepower/lower downforce” bandwagon, but I’m not with him on the opinion that Saturday’s race was suicidal. Like others have said (Leigh, on this thread, and many people other places), the last 10 laps are something of a red herring. It would have been like that with the old aero rules, with everybody running in a big pack, the only difference being that nobody would have been able to make any kind of successful passing maneuver. You do any kind of restart with a handful of laps in any kind of motorsport (NASCAR, IRL, sportscars, SCCA World Challenge, midgets, go-karts), and you’re going to get a big ol’ scrum of cars with people scrapping for position. The difference between the IRL and NASCAR seems to be that the IRL drivers (mostly, though I’m not yet convinced of this about Marco Andretti) seem to realize that they can get hurt if they do something stupid. Meanwhile, a lot of NASCAR drivers seem to stop listening to their spotters with five laps to go on the plate tracks, hence people dicing and blocking and cars getting up into the fence and what not.

My point is this: the next generation of cars will hopefully put racing back into the drivers’ hands a bit more (though the IRL could address some of the current cars’ shortcomings, if they read my blog a from couple of months ago…). Until then, and if they’re not willing to make massive wholesale changes on the current cars (they’re not), we’re stuck with what we’ve got. If you’re stuck with a certain product, then the best you can do is try to put that in the best light possible. Right now, the best light possible is to have passing a-plenty on the big tracks, and more small teams being able to compete on the road courses. We’re getting there…

By: mmack

mmack — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:27:24 +0000

George,

I agree with what poster Tom says. Robin Miller is, and has only been interested in one thing: Robin Miller. Some self promotion in any business is understandable, but my view of him is summed up in the fact that he contributed articles to the Champ Car World Series website WHILE he reported on the same series for Speed TV and Speed.com. Some impartiality, eh?

Robin takes the contrarian view because it gets people talking (or writing) about him. You and Pressdog have posted stories on his piece, and I’m sure other sites have too. Goal reached.

If the racing at Chicago and Kentucky is unreasonably dangerous, then what is his view of Sonoma, where Will Power and Nelson Phillipe were put out of commission for the rest of the season? Seems to me the “Big Ones” usually happen in IRL ROAD COURSE races on the first lap, where multiple cars funnel into a tight right or left hand turn while still bunched up in a pack.

I agree with you that lately it seems some fans don’t know they want from racing. After thirteen long, ugly years of fighting the rift is over, and many fans seem to be like soldiers after a war ends, asking “What do we do now”? The big question is how do we balance safety, innovation, and competition to make the largest number of current fans happy, and attract new fans. That is the central question to be answered if open wheel racing is to survive in the 21st century.