Surfers - Pros and Cons

[Sean Malone]

Pros-

Despite the fog surrounding the business side of CCWS, surfers is still a heck of a race and event. Beautiful location, tons of fans, fast concrete canyon track. It’s hard not to get excited about Surfers.
Standing start. F1 Lite, but cool none the less. Less American? Perhaps, but the standing starts have been clean and this race start was pretty good.
DP01. A nice looking car.
Cosworth Turbo – after all these years it stills sounds great.
The new crew – Wilson, Power, Doornbos, Rahal, Pagenou (sp). Etc. They were hustling those cars around as good as I think any can/could.
Jon B.


Cons –

If you are going to imitate F1 and have a PiP of the lights and the grid…make sure the camera is picking up the lights. Whatshis name was saying how the lights will go out and race will start…OK. No lights, cars go and he says “and they’re off!”. Anti-climactic to say the least.
Another thing I noticed regarding the production was that the ‘Live’ on screen notification was displayed even during replays. DOH!
DP01 – while a nice looking formula car, 17 identical DP01’s makes the grid look like Atlantics on steroids. It didn’t help watching the F1 race first and then the Champ Car race. They are not as elegantly designed as an F1 machine. It reminds me of a crappy die cast that doesn’t quite capture the ‘real thing’. The spec thing is really getting to me.
The new crew – No one knows them, no one cares, some of them shouldn’t be there *cough* Legg* cough*.

Having caught about half of the Champ Car races this year (which is weird to say because from ’92 to 2005 I hadn’t missed a single televised race unless I was at the race. I have yet to miss an F1 race from ’90 (remember 3:00am races on ESPN?)), I enjoyed Surfers very much.

As most of us dislike the gaps in the schedule, it is kinda cool that CC has one more to go while everyone else is wrapped up. I couldn’t help but wonder, while watching Surfers, if the ol’ CART guys were watching too and missing such a great event or if the newer ‘kids’ like Danika were watching and wishing they were there on the track. I think so. How could they not?

[Andrew Longman]

I find your negatives not very negative.

I just wish all the talk about closing shop would stop. Either say its true or announce solid and credible plans to the opposite. Presumably they've been working on next year all year. :rolleyes:

[Sean Malone]

I find your negatives not very negative.

I just wish all the talk about closing shop would stop. Either say its true or announce solid and credible plans to the opposite. Presumably they've been working on next year all year. :rolleyes:

You're right. mainly, not having watched for three months or so, then watching the F1 rac first, the thing that really stuck out to me was the identical DP01 and how that made the race look a bit too 'ladderesque'.

[cameraman]

That is no different than the all Lola field from the years prior to the DP01. Aside from the mirrors, on television the Lola looked every bit as spec as the DP01. Truth be told most, not all but most, people watching TV would be hard pressed to tell a Lola from a Reynard. It has been ages since CART had a field that was as visually diverse as the F1 field.

[Andrew Longman]

Truth be told most, not all but most, people watching TV would be hard pressed to tell a Lola from a Reynard.

Agreed. It took me a fair about of time and interest to learn the differences and only the distinctive sidepods of the last Lola made it easy to tell the difference.

The thing that would tell me this was a serious, non-ladder series would be well designed and executed liveries from a variety of marketing savvy sponsors.

[Boatdesigner]

I don't know if I am in the minority here, but I like the fact that all the cars are the same. In F1 we can pretty much write off all but 4 cars having any shot at winning. Half the field could have won the race at Surfers, well until Seb got in front! If they answer the bell next year, I think the racing will be better as we won't have SB to cheer/jeer anymore. Like him or not, the guy is fast.

I'd like to see KL get one more season, preferably with a different team. Some people just don't gel together sometime, that could be the case with Kat. She seemed to do better last year with PKV, it's a shame they didn't keep her one more year.

[Sean Malone]

That is no different than the all Lola field from the years prior to the DP01. Aside from the mirrors, on television the Lola looked every bit as spec as the DP01. Truth be told most, not all but most, people watching TV would be hard pressed to tell a Lola from a Reynard. It has been ages since CART had a field that was as visually diverse as the F1 field.

My point wasn't about comparing old chassis to the DP01. My point was that it was glaringly obvious that all chassis' were the same.

[Sean Malone]

I don't know if I am in the minority here, but I like the fact that all the cars are the same. In F1 we can pretty much write off all but 4 cars having any shot at winning. Half the field could have won the race at Surfers, well until Seb got in front! If they answer the bell next year, I think the racing will be better as we won't have SB to cheer/jeer anymore. Like him or not, the guy is fast.

I'd like to see KL get one more season, preferably with a different team. Some people just don't gel together sometime, that could be the case with Kat. She seemed to do better last year with PKV, it's a shame they didn't keep her one more year.

SB is fast, but I think it's more of a reflection of how much better N/H/L is than the rest of the field.

[jonovision_man]

I don't know if I am in the minority here, but I like the fact that all the cars are the same. In F1 we can pretty much write off all but 4 cars having any shot at winning. Half the field could have won the race at Surfers, well until Seb got in front! If they answer the bell next year, I think the racing will be better as we won't have SB to cheer/jeer anymore. Like him or not, the guy is fast.


They've taken the equipment out of the equation.

No manufacturer battle, there isn't a bunch of chassis/tire/engine combinations, you tune in and the focus is almost entirely on what the drivers are going to do.

So yeah, the racing is better, but there isn't as much to be interested in.

I love that about F1, you have a car that works on one track that is a dog on the next, one that can make a long stint, another than can't... it was even better when they had the tire war IMO, then there was the whole package with all kinds of intriguing storylines coming from it.

jono

[nrc]

SB is fast, but I think it's more of a reflection of how much better N/H/L is than the rest of the field.

Does it really matter if they're all DP01s by edict or all Lolas by circumstance?

[G.]

SB is fast, but I think it's more of a reflection of how much better N/H/L is than the rest of the field.Hate to be a fanboy of that French bastage, but he really IS that good. Listen to him at the track, in a good braking zone, and compare what you hear/see to the other racers. I was astonished at how different he and Graham ran at RA this year compared to the other drivers.

[Sean Malone]

Does it really matter if they're all DP01s by edict or all Lolas by circumstance?

Again, that wasn't the point.

[Sean Malone]

Hate to be a fanboy of that French bastage, but he really IS that good. Listen to him at the track, in a good braking zone, and compare what you hear/see to the other racers. I was astonished at how different he and Graham ran at RA this year compared to the other drivers.

Ok, I won't take that away from him, but Wilson at N/H/L = championship.

[Indy]

Does it really matter if they're all DP01s by edict or all Lolas by circumstance?

It matters to me. In the last years of the Lola (the CCWS, LLC years), no one had enough money to attempt a new competing chassis, anyway, so I understand your point, but at least in theory the series could have returned to more competitive times, and therefore the innovative spirit was still alive.

I agree with Sean. This is not significantly different than Atlantics. Not all bad, but not inspiring.

[Indy]

I don't know if I am in the minority here, but I like the fact that all the cars are the same. In F1 we can pretty much write off all but 4 cars having any shot at winning. Half the field could have won the race at Surfers, well until Seb got in front! If they answer the bell next year, I think the racing will be better as we won't have SB to cheer/jeer anymore. Like him or not, the guy is fast.

No disrespect intended, but what you describe is not racing, or motorsport, in the general sense. Two guys rolling down a hill in shopping carts are racing, in some sense, but that is not the sport we all grew to love.

Personally, I found Sunday's F1 race far, far more exciting than the CC race.

[nissan gtp]

pros:

great history and great attendence
fantastic track
titties
it's Australia
insane fly-bys
titties
race video from the 'copter


cons:

time difference
ESPN Classic :thumdown:
biggie cost to take the show down unner'
rain that fooks up the race
full course yellows
Fosters ;)

[Andrew Longman]

Hate to be a fanboy of that French bastage, but he really IS that good. Listen to him at the track, in a good braking zone, and compare what you hear/see to the other racers. I was astonished at how different he and Graham ran at RA this year compared to the other drivers.

Absolutely correct. The last so many years at Cleveland watching him come through the last T9 T10 complex he is just WAY better, scary fast. banzai on most lap than other drivers are on some laps.

[Boatdesigner]

No disrespect intended, but what you describe is not racing, or motorsport, in the general sense. Two guys rolling down a hill in shopping carts are racing, in some sense, but that is not the sport we all grew to love.

Personally, I found Sunday's F1 race far, far more exciting than the CC race.

None taken! So I guess you don't consider bicycle racing as racing due to the fact all the riders are on similar machines? ;) The problem with F1 is that some drivers are driving Ferrari's while others are driving Yugo's. Even someone as great as Clark, Senna, Fangio et al couldn't be competitive driving the Spyker against Massa in his Ferrari or Hamilton in his McLaren. If all we wanted to see was who could build the best car, we might as well eliminate the racing part and just have one driver turn laps in each car to see which one went fastest. I wish there was a way to get more than just 4 cars on the track with a chance of winning. Sorry, I love the racing, not just the machines. For machinery, I much prefer a 60' sportfisherman crashing through 4'-6' seas at 40 knots, carrying 3 staterooms, 3 heads, a living room, a kitchen and a thousand gallons of fuel. All the while making it's own electricity, desalinating it's own water and treating it's own sewage!:D

By the way, I do believe SB is at an advantage due to the NHL engineering staff. I have been wondering if the old Lola's couldn't be modified somewhat to make them competitive with the DPO1. The lap times aren't that different and it may be a way to add interest and inexpensively add some more cars.

[G.]

Absolutely correct. The last so many years at Cleveland watching him come through the last T9 T10 complex he is just WAY better, scary fast. banzai on most lap than other drivers are on some laps.Yep. Get down near the fence, listen, watch. He's got it. I'm not happy about that, but he's got it.

Sean, watch out for Graham. The kid's been taught! I do not disagree with Wilson pwning with NHL, but the year after??

(where the hell is THE PIC? Searched the innernet thing, came up empty. The one with SB bithing to Doornbos on the podium, and the fake frown on RB's face? I was going to make a comparison of THE PIC to THE PASS [AZ] in an incredibly witty manner. Oh well, your loss.:gomer: )

[G.]

For machinery, I much prefer a 60' sportfisherman crashing through 4'-6' seas at 40 knots, carrying 3 staterooms, 3 heads, a living room, a kitchen and a thousand gallons of fuel. All the while making it's own electricity, desalinating it's own water and treating it's own sewage!:D
Sounds better than tooling around a lake with Ricky Treadway!:tony: :p

[grungex]

Hate to be a fanboy of that French bastage, but he really IS that good. Listen to him at the track, in a good braking zone, and compare what you hear/see to the other racers. I was astonished at how different he and Graham ran at RA this year compared to the other drivers.

,,,,,,,,,,traction,,,,,,,control :p

[grungex]

(where the hell is THE PIC?

http://www.champcarworldseries.com/content/photos/2007/By800/20070701P_0064.jpg

[jonovision_man]

None taken! So I guess you don't consider bicycle racing as racing due to the fact all the riders are on similar machines? ;)

That's incorrect... they may look the same, but they aren't any more similar than a Ferrari and a BMW in F1. There are different manufacturers, different bikes, different materials. And in fact the bikes they use for time-trialing are dramatically different, the rear wheel is further forward and the rider leans way over the front. Some have solid wheels, others have spokes, it's far more variety than in - say - ChampCar.

But I think his comments apply more specifically to motorsport, where the car has almost always been part of the equation of what makes the races.

Used to be about racing cars, now we're racing drivers.


The problem with F1 is that some drivers are driving Ferrari's while others are driving Yugo's. Even someone as great as Clark, Senna, Fangio et al couldn't be competitive driving the Spyker against Massa in his Ferrari or Hamilton in his McLaren. If all we wanted to see was who could build the best car, we might as well eliminate the racing part and just have one driver turn laps in each car to see which one went fastest. I wish there was a way to get more than just 4 cars on the track with a chance of winning. Sorry, I love the racing, not just the machines.

I love both. And the best drivers tend to find themselves in the best cars, maybe not in their first season like Hamilton... but they do tend to move up the grid.

jono

[Indy]

None taken! So I guess you don't consider bicycle racing as racing due to the fact all the riders are on similar machines?

Bicycle racing is bicycle racing, not "racing." So, I suppose the answer is no.

I have struggled to explain my fascination with grand prix racing to my stick and ball loving friends, and all I can say is that ball sports are primarily about athleticism and skill, while racing is about a team engineering effort built around a human being, who controls the machine. It really is not a sport in the normal sense, but motorsport, which is different. To me, it is endlessly more fascinating than regular sport.

There are plenty of "sports," but only a few types of motorsport. There is always a call from those who wish for their series to appeal to the mass of fans that motorsport should drop the "motor" part, and instead promote the drivers, and that is exactly what NASCAR has done, and they have certainly reached the masses, but I would argue that they have lost the essence of what they were. I certainly hope that AOW turns back toward the real thing before it is too late.

[Indy]

Used to be about racing cars, now we're racing drivers.

Brilliantly concise. Thank you.

[stroker]

you guys have got to be kidding me... You're complaining that the average viewer will be turned off by all the cars looking the same then extolling F1 as the proof? If you painted all the F1 cars the same color nobody but a die hard fan could tell which was which.

Don't get me wrong--I wish we had more chassis/engine diversity but F1 isn't the example to use.

[Indy]

Yeah, stroker, but they are different. That is what matters.

Imagine being a fan of horse racing, but breeding horses becomes too expensive, and besides, people really want to cheer for the jockeys, so they just pick one sturdy, durable horse and clone him over and over for all future racing. So, as a fan, the show appears to be the same, the jockeys have a more level playing field, and the races are always close at the finish. But, what you are watching is a scam. It is an exhibition designed to resemble horse racing, when in fact the essence of what horse racing was no longer exists.

That is where we are in the U.S. That is why Sports Cars are more interesting, and F1 is much more interesting.

[Indy]

And, BTW, that is why we called them crapwagons.

Except that they, at that time, had more diversity than we have now. :(

[Boatdesigner]

I actually agree that the diversity in machinery makes the sport more interesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever come up with a set of rules that would allow diversity along with competition. You always end up with a few haves and a mass of have-not field filler. The race becomes a parade and then we complain about the boring races.

I watch all the F1 races, I also see the comments from drivers who would be happy to finish 10th or 12th. That doesn't say much about the competition. Even the Brazilian race was basically determined on pit stops. There was no pass for the lead on the track, or for second or third after the first lap. There was plenty of drama, but not a whole lot of racing. It was also pretty obvious that the only "pass" for the lead was well orchestrated.

By the way, the bikes used in bike races are very similar. They all weigh about the same as the UCI mandates a minimum weight (many of the bikes are ballasted to get up to weight!). The drivetrains are the same, Shimano, Campy or SRAM. The time trial bikes show more diversity, but they aren't ridden for very much of a stage race. The main difference is the riders. Sort of like Champ Car.

[Andrew Longman]

Back in the day of multiple chassis, engine, tire combinations CART also had multiple venue types. Inevitably it seemed one combination would do better on the street, another on the short ovals, another on the big ovals and others on the road courses.

And the engine and chassis manufacturers would work on closing their disadvantage over the year.

Individual races may have been parades but the season championship was a far more interesting chess match.

And much more expensive.

[NismoZ]

I think a big pro was Bruno finishing on the podium for DCR. I also think any comparisons with F-1 don't even apply and should not be regarded as a con.

[Boatdesigner]

Back in the day of multiple chassis, engine, tire combinations CART also had multiple venue types. Inevitably it seemed one combination would do better on the street, another on the short ovals, another on the big ovals and others on the road courses.

And the engine and chassis manufacturers would work on closing their disadvantage over the year.

Individual races may have been parades but the season championship was a far more interesting chess match.

And much more expensive.

I agree with you on this. The diversity in the tracks tended to equalize the differences in chassis. I seem to remember the Swift chassis being good on a couple tracks (although Mikey seemed to be the only one to tame it consistently). The Reynard in it's last years seemed to only go well on really smooth tracks IIRC. It's a shame we don't have any ovals on the schedule any longer, even though those races always bored me to death!

[Indy]

I actually agree that the diversity in machinery makes the sport more interesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever come up with a set of rules that would allow diversity along with competition. You always end up with a few haves and a mass of have-not field filler. The race becomes a parade and then we complain about the boring races.

I watch all the F1 races, I also see the comments from drivers who would be happy to finish 10th or 12th. That doesn't say much about the competition. Even the Brazilian race was basically determined on pit stops. There was no pass for the lead on the track, or for second or third after the first lap. There was plenty of drama, but not a whole lot of racing. It was also pretty obvious that the only "pass" for the lead was well orchestrated.

By the way, the bikes used in bike races are very similar. They all weigh about the same as the UCI mandates a minimum weight (many of the bikes are ballasted to get up to weight!). The drivetrains are the same, Shimano, Campy or SRAM. The time trial bikes show more diversity, but they aren't ridden for very much of a stage race. The main difference is the riders. Sort of like Champ Car.

1) You don't understand the meaning of competition. Closer "racing," as you define it, means that the series is less competitive. F1 is far, far more competitive than Champ Car, in the same sense that companies in a capitalist country are far more competitive than state owned companies in a socialist economy. Competition is not about a level playing field or about manipulated outcomes.

2) If you watched the F1 race in Brazil and you think F1 is boring, then you need to find another form of racing which caters to those with short attention spans. I would suggest NASCAR.

3) Not a whole lot of racing in Brazil? Again, you do not know what the word racing means. Try NASCAR. They approximate racing in such a way that anyone can "get it."

I know I am getting a bit rude with this post, but I have had it with Kalkhoven's target market telling us that racing is about putting the best (highest pay-ing) drivers in glorified identical gokarts to see who has the most individual skill. That is like track and field, really, with Nikes that have tires and engines and stuff.

Is there room in this world for anyone to not cater to the masses, or is the ugly result of capitalism an inevitable leveling to the least common denominator among consumers? Does every newspaper have to be a tabloid? Does every store have to be like Walmart? Does every racing series have to be like NASCAR?

Beam me up, Scotty. NILDH.

[Boatdesigner]

1) You don't understand the meaning of competition. Closer "racing," as you define it, means that the series is less competitive. F1 is far, far more competitive than Champ Car, in the same sense that companies in a capitalist country are far more competitive than state owned companies in a socialist economy. Competition is not about a level playing field or about manipulated outcomes.

2) If you watched the F1 race in Brazil and you think F1 is boring, then you need to find another form of racing which caters to those with short attention spans. I would suggest NASCAR.

3) Not a whole lot of racing in Brazil? Again, you do not know what the word racing means. Try NASCAR. They approximate racing in such a way that anyone can "get it."

I know I am getting a bit rude with this post, but I have had it with Kalkhoven's target market telling us that racing is about putting the best (highest pay-ing) drivers in glorified identical gokarts to see who has the most individual skill. That is like track and field, really, with Nikes that have tires and engines and stuff.

Is there room in this world for anyone to not cater to the masses, or is the ugly result of capitalism an inevitable leveling to the least common denominator among consumers? Does every newspaper have to be a tabloid? Does every store have to be like Walmart? Does every racing series have to be like NASCAR?

Beam me up, Scotty. NILDH.

Well, I've tried to be civil!

1) If you consider F1 more competitive because of the team aspect, then I'll agree with you. This has led to an extremely expensive sport that can only take place in countries where the government is willing to use the taxpayers money to put on a race. I disagree about the on track action being more competitive in F1. Bruno has been on the podium or close to it a couple times this year in the Coynemobile, how often has Spyker or Toro Rosso or even Toyota (after spending BILLION$) been even close? Not often. I consider competition to be what happens ON the track, not in the engineering department (I can't see that!).

2) Completely needless and gratuitous insults like this will not help your position. For your information, I have been watching F1 and CART/Champ Car for a couple decades now. The last time I watched a full cab race, Yarborough and Petty were driving. As for attention spans, I have watched every stage of the Tour de France for a number of years now and even watched quite a bit of the America's Cup. I think that says all you need to know about my attention span!

3) Please describe all the competition at the front of the field. I watched every lap, Massa lead the entire way from the start until he handed the lead to his team mate at the last pit stop. Kimi never attempted to pass him during the race in any serious way. Alonso was nearly a minute behind Kimi at the end and was nearly invisible. The best action was from 4-6 in the ending stages of the race and it was pretty good. I never said the race had no excitement, merely that it was decided by pit stops. I was referring to the leaders of the race, not the back markers who finished nearly a lap down. If you consider "racing" to be a match between two completely mismatched cars, where one hasn't a snowballs chance in h##l of winning, then you truly have no idea what racing means. There is a reason why we don't let heavyweights fight the featherweights.

I think what you want is a return to the 50's and 60's, when people built cars in their garages that could compete on a world stage. Sorry, those days are done except for SCCA racing. If Champ Car is so terrible, then please watch something else. Stop torturing yourself, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.

[nrc]

2) If you watched the F1 race in Brazil and you think F1 is boring, then you need to find another form of racing which caters to those with short attention spans. I would suggest NASCAR.
It's kind of funny to think of a sport where they go round and round for four hours as catering to a short attention span. F1 bores me and I'm not intersted in NASCAR. Your notion of F1 as a racing intelligence litmus test is elitist garbage.

Champ car isn't running spec cars because that's their vision of the sport, they're running spec cars because that's the only economically viable way to run the series right now.

[Ray Scar]

Seems like the word "competitive" is being used in place of "parity" in this thread. Competitive is more about how the car is today (good setup, correct tire choice, etc.) while parity speaks to ones chances week in and week out.

The F1 race from Brazil, like most, had plenty to offer. The trouble with F1 is that the good fights aren't usually for 1st and don't always make it on TV. By some people's definition this makes F1 "uncompetitive".

There has been a tendency, especially with the rise NASCAR popularity, for many to call for all racing to conform to some vague notion of what every race should look like. If there aren't 6 cars bumping each other as they cross finish line then, by definition, it was a boring race.

It's great when it happens but series like F1 and ChampCar face a real dilemma if they try to follow this model. F1 especially, where the cars are assumed to be unequal. F1 races are often criticized as parades but why would anyone expect unequal cars to be equally fast? Over the distance of one stint, let alone an entire race, small differences in performance are magnified. NASCAR solves this with the yellow flag and routinely handing the winner an aerodynamic brick to carry around next time, but that's not really an option in a series that invites innovation.

The best thing ChampCar (actually CART) had going for itself in these terms was they had achieved parity through rules stability. The 2.65l had been around so long that even mega-yen couldn't offer more than incremental gains. Chassis (aero) development offered some possibility to gain advantage but the rules kept that in check. By introducing the DP01 that process begins anew and once again the big buck teams will enjoy an advantage for a while.

I don't follow NASCAR because I don't consider it to be legitimate racing (and I won't abide cheering for crashes) because it punishes the winners. I enjoy F1 and ALMS for the technology and highly competitive nature of an international series. The jury is still out on ChampCar, we won't know until they get to the point where they allow alternative chassis/engine combinations, but I believe they are trying.

One thing they can't do is insist that every race follow some script that has the hero winning by a nose. Sometimes the best racing of the day is for 5th spot, sometimes there's more drama in qualifying. Let it happen. Real sport is unpredictable and trying to change that to improve the "spectacle" is doomed to failure.

Wise words (that apply to life in general) from a friend after the rain debacle at Road America some years back: "They can't all be gems".

(Sorry for the long ramble, that's what happens when the repair man doesn't show up on time.)

[Indy]

Champ car isn't running spec cars because that's their vision of the sport, they're running spec cars because that's the only economically viable way to run the series right now.

Prove it. All the talk of a "driver's series" and so forth? And I am supposed to believe these guys are purists? Or do they sometimes tell the fans what they want to hear in a desperate bid to survive while they implement a plan that makes the term "champ car" meaningless?

"I see no reason to believe we will not return to Milwaukee in '07." -Kevin Kalkhoven

[Insomniac]

Prove it. All the talk of a "driver's series" and so forth? And I am supposed to believe these guys are purists? Or do they sometimes tell the fans what they want to hear in a desperate bid to survive while they implement a plan that makes the term "champ car" meaningless?

"I see no reason to believe we will not return to Milwaukee in '07." -Kevin Kalkhoven

You think they want only one engine manufacturer (and no car manufacturers), one chassis manufacturer and one tire manufacturer? They want to fund the series with no real outside support?

[Indy]

You think they want only one engine manufacturer (and no car manufacturers), one chassis manufacturer and one tire manufacturer? They want to fund the series with no real outside support?

I don't know what to think. I am bewildered by their courses of action. They tell us that a spec series, a "driver's series," is a noble thing, and now many of their former fans have dropped away because of it, and many current fans claim it is why they support the series. If they want to have a real series someday, they need to be communicating so that older fans have a reason to hang on.

For a long time, I thought the spec car, street festival talk was just how they chose to put lipstick on the pig, but now I am not so sure. I suspect they, like almost everyone else in the U.S., have looked at NASCAR and thought that they could P.T. Barnum their way to the top.

Now, given the '07 season, it seems to me that they are mailing it in, so if they sold or folded, I would not be surprised, as they clearly have not been willing to spend an extra dime to improve (this year).

[Indy]

^^^ Reading my own post above, another thought accurs to me: it is clear that what they are lacking is leadership. They must be so internally conflicted that no consistent message can emerge, and the gridlock at HQ continues.

A partnership gone bad.




Sorry for the off topic excursion, but it sort of relates to Sean's ideas. The "ladderesque" feel leaves many feeling ambivalent about something which once inspired passion. Leadership is sorely needed.

[jonovision_man]

You think they want only one engine manufacturer (and no car manufacturers), one chassis manufacturer and one tire manufacturer? They want to fund the series with no real outside support?

Agreed, clearly not.

The vision of what makes an ideal series seems to change once reality hits.

Then they have to sell it to us, so they think of any positives they can glean and tell us how great it is that drivers all have "equal equipment". They used to tell us how great the diversity of circuits was, too, but reality's a bitch.

jono

[Insomniac]

I don't know what to think.

To put it simply, it's about $$$. Multiple manufactures means money is coming to the series. They would not pass this up. No one is signing up.

All they managed to do was lose engine manufacturers, tire manufacturers and chassis manufacturers. They didn't kick out Goodyear to make Firestone exclusive. They didn't kick out all the chassis makers to make the Lola the de facto spec chassis. They didn't kick out Honda/Toyota because they wanted only Ford (Cosworth).

[Insomniac]

Agreed, clearly not.

The vision of what makes an ideal series seems to change once reality hits.

Then they have to sell it to us, so they think of any positives they can glean and tell us how great it is that drivers all have "equal equipment". They used to tell us how great the diversity of circuits was, too, but reality's a bitch.

jono

The racing has been better. Before, all the diversity and cars created good racing. Now, the diversity is gone (no more ovals/super speedways, only one car). They have to make it as close to IROC as they can so they can avoid parades. Only problem is, short of handicapping cars/teams, it's an ideal they can't reach. The best drivers will end up with the best teams who can also exploit what little engineering advantage can be gained.

[jonovision_man]

The racing has been better. Before, all the diversity and cars created good racing. Now, the diversity is gone (no more ovals/super speedways, only one car). They have to make it as close to IROC as they can so they can avoid parades. Only problem is, short of handicapping cars/teams, it's an ideal they can't reach. The best drivers will end up with the best teams who can also exploit what little engineering advantage can be gained.

And then the best drivers will win! How do we stop this??? :p

jono

[Insomniac]

And then the best drivers will win! How do we stop this??? :p

jono

Diversity. Way too many variables for one team to win/dominate everything. That and tight controls on aero to ensure that cars can follow closely and can't be set up to be perfect around an entire course.

[jonovision_man]

I was being sarcastic... but I do agree with what you're saying, more variables generally means more unpredictability.

F1 - one of the best seasons in recent memory IMO was when they used one set of tires for the entire race. Bad idea? Probably. Unpredictable? You bet! Some cars/drivers would eat up tires, so would be fast at the start and a dog by the end. Lead to lots of end-of-race drama. Having a tire war in F1 was generally a really good thing, some days Michelin got it right, other days Bridgestone, it was good.

jono

[Rogue Leader]

I was being sarcastic... but I do agree with what you're saying, more variables generally means more unpredictability.

F1 - one of the best seasons in recent memory IMO was when they used one set of tires for the entire race. Bad idea? Probably. Unpredictable? You bet! Some cars/drivers would eat up tires, so would be fast at the start and a dog by the end. Lead to lots of end-of-race drama. Having a tire war in F1 was generally a really good thing, some days Michelin got it right, other days Bridgestone, it was good.

jono

Ive gotta say tht one race where Raikkonen lost it on the last lap because the tire exploded, was just insane.... however part of me feels like it felt contrived as well...

[Sean Malone]

Ive gotta say tht one race where Raikkonen lost it on the last lap because the tire exploded, was just insane.... however part of me feels like it felt contrived as well...

Ah, the ol' push 'tyre shred' button on the steering wheel gag. :thumbup: