So does Bernard get fired? [Archive] - Page 2

mueber

10-19-11, 11:47 AM

Ziggy=Perfect

I remember the supposedly "good old days" when people were killed and maimed far more often than the are now, so I am not going to join the chorus asking for people's heads, and I don't know enough about the situation at Las Vegas to know how I should feel about Wheldon's death, but I do know that the IRL, its cars, its drivers, its tracks, its safety record, and its management have always been substandard. 34 cars on a high banked oval, in cheap cars driven by ride-buying amateurs is asking for it, and it happened.

If the stands were full, and the drivers, cars, and tracks interesting, maybe it would be worth it, but it's not. It should die, just die

SurfaceUnits

10-19-11, 12:36 PM

can you amagion all the F1 & Nascar drivers who are kicking themselves for not accepting the challenge. boggels the mined dont' it

Andrew Longman

10-19-11, 12:55 PM

can you amagion all the F1 & Nascar drivers who are kicking themselves for not accepting the challenge. boggels the mined dont' itFewer and fewer even see "doing the double" as a plausible idea. Won't now at all, I'd guess. Jimmy Johnson speaks volumes I suspect.

Seriously, if you wanted to make the I500 irrelevant, what ELSE would you do that these idiots haven't done?

Elmo T

10-19-11, 01:36 PM

Seriously, if you wanted to make the I500 irrelevant, what ELSE would you do that these idiots haven't done?

I am sure somewhere, deep within the bowels of Speedway, Indiana, they have it ready to go. :rolleyes:

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 04:02 PM

I've also noticed in the articles I've been reading that they are quoting only NASCAR drivers. Probably due to their name recognition and partly due to the IndyCar drivers not wanting to give interviews this soon. Most recommend IndyCars not race on ovals at all. Agenda?

Agendas? In motorsport? Of course it is.

What bothers me more about the NASCAR drivers' quotes, esp Johnson, is that they don't know what the h=ll they're talking about, No, morons, "speed," by itself isn't the issue, nor IMHO, was the 34-car field anything more than tiny contributor. Look, CART reached 230+ at MIS 20 bleeping yrs. They reached 240 at Fontana in '97. You know what? That wasn't crazy dangerous.

No, the issue running 225 IN PACKS. The issue is pack racing, period. You get separation (and IndyCars that don't blowover as easily as the IR03/05) and it immediately is very much safer. Heck, if it meant separation, I'd be OK with 230-235 at Vegas, Texas, etc.

The ONLY speed issue is vertigo. If the only way to break up the packs by forcing lifting off the throttle (or a real scrubbing of speed) in the corners is to increase speeds to the point it causes vertigo, well, then you CANNOT race there. But that's the only speed issue I see.

As it is, if we slow 'em down even more, it will make the packs bigger, thus making the problem worse.

racer2c

10-19-11, 04:20 PM

Agendas? In motorsport? Of course it is.

What bothers me more about the NASCAR drivers' quotes, esp Johnson, is that they don't know what the h=ll they're talking about, No, morons, "speed," by itself isn't the issue, nor IMHO, was the 34-car field anything more than tiny contributor. Look, CART reached 230+ at MIS 20 bleeping yrs. They reached 240 at Fontana in '97. You know what? That wasn't crazy dangerous.

No, the issue running 225 IN PACKS. The issue is pack racing, period. You get separation (and IndyCars that don't blowover as easily as the IR03/05) and it immediately is very much safer. Heck, if it meant separation, I'd be OK with 230-235 at Vegas, Texas, etc.

The ONLY speed issue is vertigo. If the only way to break up the packs by forcing lifting off the throttle (or a real scrubbing of speed) in the corners is to increase speeds to the point it causes vertigo, well, then you CANNOT race there. But that's the only speed issue I see.

As it is, if we slow 'em down even more, it will make the packs bigger, thus making the problem worse.

My question mark after 'agenda' was there in jest. :) I think we're all on the same page... it's the cars.

2 drivers lost their lives because the idiots in Indy mandated the worst car ever to hit a race track and kept it there for 9 years. The IRL will simply point to the new car and say, forget the past 9 years...we have a new, safer car! We're great!

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 04:22 PM

Heck, if it meant separation, I'd be OK with 230-235 at Vegas, Texas, etc.

That idea would have a metric ton of people frothing at the mouth, but you're exactly right. All the public calls for slowing the cars down are nonsense -- you can get killed at 180 mph too.

The solution to this problem is finding a way to make the cars harder to drive, so that the ability levels of the drivers actually make a difference. More power and less downforce will get the job done. Having said that, I still don't think running places like Las Vegas and Texas would be very good ideas even with a revised spec.

In a business sense, what they did at LVMS was a decent idea -- IndyCar promoted the race and put a venue on the schedule that otherwise wouldn't have been because they didn't ask the track to take a huge financial risk. If they want to preserve open-wheel oval racing, they're going to have to do more of that in the short term, even if it costs them money. Keep Indianapolis, Iowa, Fontana, and Kentucky on the schedule, and spend what you have to spend to get three from the list of Milwaukee, Gateway, Phoenix, Michigan, Richmond, and Loudon on board. Forget about Las Vegas and Texas.

Go to the right kinds of ovals and use the right technical arrangement and you can have compelling oval racing that people will pay to see.

cameraman

10-19-11, 04:23 PM

Except that the new car was designed to encourage pack racing and no one will know its flight characteristics until one gets sideways at 225.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 04:26 PM

BTW: The insinuation by some in the non-sports media that Dan was "rusty" is a) factually wrong (Dear media, try using "teh Googles and the Intranets.":gomer::shakehead)- he tested the '12 car, ran Kentucky 2 weeks earlier and, oh yeah, won the INDY 500 this yr- and b) getting borderline offensive.:flame:

Back to the original question in this thread, no, do NOT fire Bernard. Any mistakes he made here, which were trivial or non-existent, can be learned from. Watch the announcement from him Sunday (credit to him for doing it himself). I'd say it's beyond devastated, and to hear Miller say it, he (RM) had to talk Randy off the ledge Sunday and Monday from resigning right then. Someone deserves to go, but Bernard inherited an old, lousy formula, and set about to get a new one from day one on the job- giving us a new formula for 2012. Watching him Sun., he'll be determined to learn from any mistakes made.

It's the creator/enabler of the formula, TGBB, who needs to go, not Randy.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 04:30 PM

That idea would have a metric ton of people frothing at the mouth, but you're exactly right. All the public calls for slowing the cars down are nonsense -- you can get killed at 180 mph too.

The solution to this problem is finding a way to make the cars harder to drive, so that the ability levels of the drivers actually make a difference. More power and less downforce will get the job done. Having said that, I still don't think running places like Las Vegas and Texas would be very good ideas even with a revised spec.

In a business sense, what they did at LVMS was a decent idea -- IndyCar promoted the race and put a venue on the schedule that otherwise wouldn't have been because they didn't ask the track to take a huge financial risk. If they want to preserve open-wheel oval racing, they're going to have to do more of that in the short term, even if it costs them money. Keep Indianapolis, Iowa, Fontana, and Kentucky on the schedule, and spend what you have to spend to get three from the list of Milwaukee, Gateway, Phoenix, Michigan, Richmond, and Loudon on board. Forget about Las Vegas and Texas.

Go to the right kinds of ovals and use the right technical arrangement and you can have compelling oval racing that people will pay to see.

Total agreement, though might be willing to TEST a revised spec at Texas to see if it's doable and reasonable. If it isn't both of those, then so long.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 04:31 PM

Except that the new car was designed to encourage pack racing and no one will know its flight characteristics until one gets sideways at 225.

Any link to that assertion? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd not seen that in writing or quotes.

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 04:39 PM

Total agreement, though might be willing to TEST a revised spec at Texas to see if it's doable and reasonable. If it isn't both of those, then so long.

In principle, sure, but there are two things we know: the new car will be faster than the current one, and human capability hasn't really changed in the last decade. If guys were blacking out at 230 mph in 2001, it'll happen again in 2012.

And, frankly, I think there's a limit to the banking they should be running on at any speed. Kentucky is pushing the boundary of reasonability at 14 degrees. LVMS is 20 degrees and unsuitable, IMO. Texas is 4 degrees worse and way unsuitable.

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 04:40 PM

The new car really isn't designed for pack racing at all, but because it's made by Dallara, some people will believe that anyway.

cameraman

10-19-11, 05:42 PM

Everything about that car is designed around encouraging "side by side" racing. That is their oft stated goal. "Side by side" is just another word for a pack.

10-19-11, 05:44 PM

That verges on criminal. I believe the new car does have 'ground effects'.

Dallara is going to name the new chassis after Dan.

link (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1067474_dallara-to-name-2012-indycar-chassis-for-dan-wheldon)

Naming the next car after Dan is criminal. :mad:

I guess I'm one of the ones ed is talking about.

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 05:47 PM

Everything about that car is designed around encouraging "side by side" racing.

It's really not, but keep telling yourself that.

Ziggy

10-19-11, 06:05 PM

I think the bigger question here is who GAF?

get rid of the spec car, period

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 06:25 PM

get rid of the spec car, period

I think they would if they thought anyone could afford it. The aero kits weren't a great option but they were better than nothing ... too bad the owners didn't have the foresight to recognize that.

Don Quixote

10-19-11, 06:45 PM

I can't imagine that they didn't design it specifically for pack racing. I haven't heard anything from the brain trusts in years and years that would lead you to conclude that they were going for anything other than NASCAR style racing. Hell, they podded the rear wheels so the cars could run closer together. Is podded a word?

Gnam

10-19-11, 06:51 PM

The solution to this problem is finding a way to make the cars harder to drive, so that the ability levels of the drivers actually make a difference. More power and less downforce will get the job done.

That has been the solution forever. The IRL isn't interested.

Will the new car be driven with the accelerator mashed to the floor just like the old one was?

Spicoli

10-19-11, 06:52 PM

I think they would if they thought anyone could afford it. The aero kits weren't a great option but they were better than nothing ... too bad the owners didn't have the foresight to recognize that.

Exactly. Few cared about the IRL before, and even less do now. Why do they even bother? If you think about it, everyone in the IRL has been living off the Hulman pocketbook, and dreams of what INDY used to be.

Time for it to go. Finally.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 07:25 PM

Everything about that car is designed around encouraging "side by side" racing. That is their oft stated goal. "Side by side" is just another word for a pack.

What car? The IR03/05 or what I'll call the DW12? The former? Sure. The latter? Still waiting for anything resembling evidence.

BTW: From, the "OMG, are they uninformed" file, this from of all places, a pro-life site: (http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/death-of-indycar-driver-dan-wheldon-reflects-the-sports-lack-of-respect-for-life/)

Then came Louden, New Hampshire. It was raining, and for some reason, the cars were not carrying their rain tires.

You know, for some reason, those soccer guys don't just pick up the ball with their d@mn hands!:tony::laugh::shakehead

miatanut

10-19-11, 07:38 PM

All the public calls for slowing the cars down are nonsense -- you can get killed at 180 mph too.

1/2MV2(squared).

Of course speed makes a difference. The difference between 180 & 220 is significant. Almost 50% more energy to dissipate.

The solution to this problem is finding a way to make the cars harder to drive, so that the ability levels of the drivers actually make a difference. More power and less downforce will get the job done.

Agreed there. This has been the problem for years, in CCWS and CART as well as the IRL.

The new car really isn't designed for pack racing at all, but because it's made by Dallara, some people will believe that anyway.

They widened the middle and put those bumpers on the back to reduce the interlocking wheel situation precisely because they wanted more pack racing. Somebody, maybe it was Mario, was talking about making the car one where you had to lift in the turns (like you mentioned above) and then little Al popped up with some statement that the new car needed to be built for SIDE BY SIDE!!!! because that's what Indy racing was, and the Gomerati all glommed onto that, to no surprise. The new car is built to make the Gomerati happy.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 07:42 PM

Exactly. Few cared about the IRL before, and even less do now. Why do they even bother? If you think about it, everyone in the IRL has been living off the Hulman pocketbook, and dreams of what INDY used to be.

Time for it to go. Finally.

And then what? Watch ALMS on ESPN3 (on the cycles that mftrs. give a darn about it)?:gomer: Move to Oz to became a rabid, live follower of V8's?

I know, I know, F1! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, watch and/or DVR every GP, qualy and practice. But there are three, by my count, GPs in the Eastern Hemisphere. And that's supposed to replace my fandom of an NA-based series?

Or are you saying, "Eff it, there's nothing but time and new ventures to replace it, but it's dead, so just read it last rites and get it over it?" I don't see it that way, but respect it.

Or are you a "magical thinker," whose reasoning goes something like this:

1. Blow it up
2. ???????
3. VICTORY!!!

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 08:00 PM

1/2MV2(squared).

Of course speed makes a difference. The difference between 180 & 220 is significant. Almost 50% more energy to dissipate.

Agreed there. This has been the problem for years, in CCWS and CART as well as the IRL.

They widened the middle and put those bumpers on the back to reduce the interlocking wheel situation precisely because they wanted more pack racing. Somebody, maybe it was Mario, was talking about making the car one where you had to lift in the turns (like you mentioned above) and then little Al popped up with some statement that the new car needed to be built for SIDE BY SIDE!!!! because that's what Indy racing was, and the Gomerati all glommed onto that, to no surprise. The new car is built to make the Gomerati happy.

Two things:

You''ve got direct links to the quotes you reference, right? Cause I'd love to see them.

Second, pretty sure (hunch, anyhow) that the bumper was inspired far more by Mike Conway at Indy, NOT pack-induced, than anything else.

Broader point: Even with the elimination of packs, this notion that you're never going to get moments of side-by-side racing is not only wrong but antithetical to the entire sport. Yes, we need to eliminate manufactured, lap-after-lap side-by-side, but if you think every pass on an oval will be a gentlemanly affair with drivers always giving each other tons of room, well, good luck with that. Which I guess was my one of my points in the thread on the 2012 car.

miatanut

10-19-11, 08:24 PM

Two things:

You''ve got direct links to the quotes you reference, right? Cause I'd love to see them.

Second, pretty sure (hunch, anyhow) that the bumper was inspired far more by Mike Conway at Indy, NOT pack-induced, than anything else.

Broader point: Even with the elimination of packs, this notion that you're never going to get moments of side-by-side racing is not only wrong but antithetical to the entire sport. Yes, we need to eliminate manufactured, lap-after-lap side-by-side, but if you think every pass on an oval will be a gentlemanly affair with drivers always giving each other tons of room, well, good luck with that. Which I guess was my one of my points in the thread on the 2012 car.
Yeah, right. I'm really a closet gomer and I've archived and indexed every article about the new car. :rofl:

I'm not sure I even have the right Unser. Maybe it was Bobby. Spending a few minutes on the internet, I learned that Jr. had some kind of race management position, recently got busted for drunk driving (again), and got canned from his race management position. I think that's pretty funny.

Anyway, I did bump into this:

TONY COTMAN: Thanks, Brian. Our goal was to maintain the IZOD IndyCar Series position as the fastest and most versatile racing series in the world. We feel the strategy is the most effective way to achieve different looking cars while maintaining close racing that has become the hallmark of the sport.

We also wanted to maintain our position as the leader in motorsports safety. The core of the new car will be the IndyCar Safety Cell, with improved visibility, head, leg and back protection, advanced padding and more.

Another unique concept to improve our close racing is the wheel interlock prevention system. The system will let cars run side by side while limiting the chance for locking wheels and the risk for getting airborne.

http://www.racingwest.com/news/articles/23777-transcript-of-indycar-chassis-announcement.html

That's a couple years after what I'm talking about, but it does affirm that encouraging SIDE BY SIDE!!!! was part of the design brief.

I'm not talking about passing between cars with different chassis, tires, and engines, so they have different strengths and weaknesses, but in the course of passing on an oval the cars will be side by side for a time. I'm talking about a formula aimed at encouraging side by side racing.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 08:27 PM

Mario speaks (http://espn.go.com/racing/indycar/story/_/id/7122629/mario-andretti-grieving-yet-again) to Ed Hinton.

Somehow, he doesn't blame Bernard, or the facility (another dumb criticism) and comments favorably on the new car. Ahh, what does he know anyhow?:gomer:

Seriously, pack racing can do this with 26-28 cars or 34. The too many cars thing is either a minor factor or a non-factor.

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 08:28 PM

Broader point: Even with the elimination of packs, this notion that you're never going to get moments of side-by-side racing is not only wrong but antithetical to the entire sport. Yes, we need to eliminate manufactured, lap-after-lap side-by-side, but if you think every pass on an oval will be a gentlemanly affair with drivers always giving each other tons of room, well, good luck with that. Which I guess was my one of my points in the thread on the 2012 car.

Exactly. The bodywork arrangement at the rear wheels isn't there to promote pack racing. It's there because they recognize that no matter what else they do, contact will happen at times.

The emphasis on downforce from the undertray and not from the wings -- just like with the DP01 -- is intended to reduce drag and turbulence, which should make it easier for cars to pass one another instead of pulling out into the second line and getting hung up. Three different engine manufacturers with fairly loose technical guidelines will result in a power disparity that doesn't currently exist. And in 2013 when the manufacturer aero kits come along, those will differentiate the cars as well.

None of that points to pack racing.

1/2MV2(squared).

Of course speed makes a difference. The difference between 180 & 220 is significant. Almost 50% more energy to dissipate.

So you can't get killed at 180 mph?

Unnecessary physics lesson aside, that totally misses the point. Speed isn't the fundamental problem, and pack racing at 180 mph is still dangerous. They'd be better off at 240 mph with the right formula.

Beside that, if you think nobody watches now, you'll be real surprised at how many fans they pick up by slowing the cars down more. Because, you know, finding new ways to go slower is what racing has always been about.

Ed_Severson

10-19-11, 08:32 PM

That's a couple years after what I'm talking about, but it does affirm that encouraging SIDE BY SIDE!!!! was part of the design brief.

No, it doesn't. :rolleyes: Acknowledging that from time to time it will happen does not make it a design target. Good grief.

Racing Truth

10-19-11, 08:35 PM

Yeah, right. I'm really a closet gomer and I've archived and indexed every article about the new car. :rofl:

I'm not sure I even have the right Unser. Maybe it was Bobby. Spending a few minutes on the internet, I learned that Jr. had some kind of race management position, recently got busted for drunk driving (again), and got canned from his race management position. I think that's pretty funny.

Anyway, I did bump into this:

http://www.racingwest.com/news/articles/23777-transcript-of-indycar-chassis-announcement.html

That's a couple years after what I'm talking about, but it does affirm that encouraging SIDE BY SIDE!!!! was part of the design brief.

I'm not talking about passing between cars with different chassis, tires, and engines, so they have different strengths and weaknesses, but in the course of passing on an oval the cars will be side by side for a time. I'm talking about a formula aimed at encouraging side by side racing.

First, from July 2010. Not bad but just noting.

Secondly, I think too much is being read into it. Encouraging and allowing are two different things. I've always thought the new car was intended, in part, to mitigate pack racing. It is NOT meant to eliminate close racing.

Third, hate the look of the bumper, but I'll never again argue against it.

Fio1

10-19-11, 09:07 PM

Here's a little more info on the so called $5million prize...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2051166/Dan-Wheldons-cut-178-000-Las-Vegas-race.html

miatanut

10-19-11, 09:24 PM

So you can't get killed at 180 mph?

No, but with 50% more energy to absorb, there is 50% more chance that a given chassis won't be able to get the job done, so there is a 50% greater chance of death from that impact. Plus, given you get to the scene of an accident faster when you are going faster (duh!), there is less chance the driver will be able to avoid it, so really, there is MORE than a 50% increase in the chance of getting killed. We're talking about going from a very, very small chance, to a very small chance, but it's significant.

Beside that, of you think nobody watches now, you'll be real surprised at how many fans they pick up by slowing the cars down more. Because, you know, finding new ways to go slower is what racing has always been about.

If you happen to have Superspeedway, I'd recommend having another look at the last few minutes. Before they fire the roadster up, Mario's telling a story about a race Chris Economaki was promoting where had some fake rocket powered car that they said was going to go 600 MPH and they went around afterward interviewing people if they thought it really went 600 MPH. Nobody agreed it did, but some guy said something like 'No, more like 200-300.' I don't remember the exact speed he estimated. Mario said the car was really doing like 80.

That's an exaggeration, but in truth if you asked casual fans at the track who weren't bringing outside knowledge of how fast the cars were going, how fast they were going, you would get wildly inaccurate answers, probably mostly too high. If you didn't do a side by side test at 180 & 220, people would find 180 to be plenty fast enough to be exciting if the cars sounded and looked decent. You only need to compare the size of the F1 (lower top speeds) fanbase to the Indy (higher top speeds) fanbase to see that how fast the car goes by isn't the key thing.

No, it doesn't. :rolleyes: Acknowledging that from time to time it will happen does not make it a design target. Good grief.
Did you read the quote? Originally I just highlighted the second sentence, then I realized the first sentence was a jewel, betraying intent:

"Another unique concept to improve our close racing..."

"Improve our close racing," as in encourage, to improve the show.

racer2c

10-19-11, 10:19 PM

150 or 250, it isn't impact with a wall, it's flying up into the fence. Damn, try to keep up people!!:flame:

Tifosi24

10-20-11, 06:31 AM

150 or 250, it isn't impact with a wall, it's flying up into the fence. Damn, try to keep up people!!:flame:

Bingo. If it weren't so early in the morning I would try to find the Paul Tracy interview I read. He basically said that the cars, the walls, the track designs are generally quite safe, but the fencing hasn't kept up with other innovations. If we keep the cars on the ground, it will solve a lot of the safety issues Indycar has seen since its inception.

Elmo T

10-20-11, 08:13 AM

Bingo. If it weren't so early in the morning I would try to find the Paul Tracy interview I read. He basically said that the cars, the walls, the track designs are generally quite safe, but the fencing hasn't kept up with other innovations.

PT:

You know, obviously it is -- we like to see improvement. I think there can be improvement made in the catch fencing. There's been so much improvement done with safer walls and head and neck restraint systems and seats in the cars have gotten safer and safer. But what really stayed the same is the catch fencing along the walls has really stayed the same over the past 100 years. And you know, my thoughts are, why can't we have some type of ballistic type of Plexiglas or safety glass that would still allow the fans to see the race track but keep cares from getting tangles in the fencing like a web, like a spider web? Once the cars get in there it just starts ripping the cars apart. So maybe that's the next thing that needs to happen in terms of safety for race events.

Linky (http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007219&docId=l:1522415674&Em=7&start=20) thing if you want to read the whole script.

Trevor Longman

10-20-11, 10:10 AM

While I agree with what PT said there, it's sad to think that even if there was some brilliant new fence technology that was invented to stop just this sort of accident, it would never be implemented outside of maybe Indy. Think about it, after Moores crash the infield sections were paved over to prevent the digging in and rolling because NASCAR cars would regularly do that kind of rolling themselves. When the University of Nebraska invented SAFER barriers with the help of Indycar, NASCAR installed them at all their tracks because softer walls would help their drivers as well.

But now we're facing another round of innovations in the wake of this crash and it will more than likely be in the fencing department. An improvement to the fencing would help keep Indycar races on ovals a lot safer but I don't think it would do much for NASCAR. I was thinking and I can only think of 2 instances in recent history that NASCAR cars got up into the fencing. Carl Edwards in 2010 at Talladega, and Geoff Bodine at Daytona in 2000. When the incidents in which this new technology would help are a decade apart, I don't see it being worth it to ISC and SMI to upgrade, and trust me, they aren't going to be upgrading anything to cater to the needs of Indycar. Maybe Indy will upgrade because they actually care about their indycar race and it could be a nice PR boost but I think most ovals in this country just won't feel the need.

Napoleon

10-20-11, 10:15 AM

. . .trust me, they aren't going to be upgrading anything to cater to the needs of Indycar.

Plus I will take a WAG and I bet if you priced it out an upgrade like that is going to be many times more expensive then any of the others you mentioned.

racer2c

10-20-11, 10:44 AM

Fix the flying cars and you wont need to invent a new fence.

Chief

10-20-11, 10:51 AM

150 or 250, it isn't impact with a wall, it's flying up into the fence. Damn, try to keep up people!!:flame:
The ONLY constant in all of these 8 years of flips, flops and flys IS THE FREAKING CAR!

Rather than admit the IRL design is flawed, EVERYONE side skirts the real issue and we press forward while looking for things to blame it on.

Paul Tracy once said "I won't drive those crapwagons". Why did you say that Paul? Rusty Wallace said "I wouldn't get out of an electric chair to drive one of those (IRLcarz)". Why Rusty?

It'll never be safe, never. But when there's a frequency of accidents...a pattern established....there is negligence for failure to act. And then they name the new car after Wheldon? Name a trophy after him, or anything but that. MORONS are running this sport. :flame:

Chief

10-20-11, 11:16 AM

http://www.knoxvilleraceway.com/PhotoGet.aspx?width=500&height=333&id=5899

This is Knoxville in the corners...keep the sprints in the park...(mostly). Hard flat surfaces higher up can help, get rid of ability to get snagged by a fence post. Combine that with better balanced car and aero anti-launch design and you that's just about all you can do for an open wheel car I reckon.

But with this crew in charge, in this economy, expect no change and more carnage.

SteveH

10-20-11, 11:36 AM

The ONLY constant in all of these 8 years of flips, flops and flys IS THE FREAKING CAR!

Rather than admit the IRL design is flawed, EVERYONE side skirts the real issue and we press forward while looking for things to blame it on.

Paul Tracy once said "I won't drive those crapwagons". Why did you say that Paul? Rusty Wallace said "I wouldn't get out of an electric chair to drive one of those (IRLcarz)". Why Rusty?

It'll never be safe, never. But when there's a frequency of accidents...a pattern established....there is negligence for failure to act. And then they name the new car after Wheldon? Name a trophy after him, or anything but that. MORONS are running this sport. :flame:

+ 1,000,000,000. :thumbup:

SurfaceUnits

10-20-11, 11:47 AM

the side by side restarts was designed to promote eggcitement and crashes,,,,that's what the head gomer said in an interview

miatanut

10-20-11, 12:04 PM

Plus I will take a WAG and I bet if you priced it out an upgrade like that is going to be many times more expensive then any of the others you mentioned.

Yup!

And you've added a maintenance expense in cleaning it before every event so people can see through it.

And every plastic glazing I'm aware of gets killed by UV, so it gradually turns milky or pink or yellow. Do you keep them covered by tarps most of the time and remove the tarps for events (another expense)?

Ziggy

10-20-11, 12:30 PM

For years I have dreamed of the Indy track coverd by a see through dome

it gets weirder........

Get rid of the car, slow it down even....... but don't get rid of ovals

but then again, what is the point?

The sport will never recover from the split

Rogue Leader

10-20-11, 12:56 PM

Insomniac

10-20-11, 01:07 PM

Chief

10-20-11, 01:37 PM

I was thinking and I can only think of 2 instances in recent history that NASCAR cars got up into the fencing. Carl Edwards in 2010 at Talladega, and Geoff Bodine at Daytona in 2000.
NASCAR addressed this successfully with ROOF FLAPS as the impetus was established from 1988's tALledega wreck with Bobby Allison who flew into the fence backwards. That was a flying issue. Edwards and Bodine were launched and the fence did exactly as it was intended.

IRL has done nothing to address the flying. The only example I'll offer is Mario's flight at Indy...if a 4 inch piece of styrofoam can get a car 25 feet off the ground, spinning end over end for over 100 feet, that's an accomplishment. IF the car just flipped over on its rollhoop, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And time after time we've learned just what it will do, and the IRL won't do.

racer2c

10-20-11, 02:14 PM

Will Power chimes in again:

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111019/IRL/111019852?utm_source=DailyDrive20111020&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=missedarticle3more&utm_content=20111019-IndyCar__Las_Vegas_is_%27a_recipe_for_disaster,%27 _Will_Power_says&utm_campaign=awdailydrive

If I got thrown the way he did I'd say the same thing

""I have been running on these ovals for a couple of years now and your worst nightmare is to end up airborne and heading toward the catch fence," Power said of his own flight that occurred during the 15-car crash at the Las Vegas speedway.

"The catch fence just destroys the car. A lot of guys have had their legs destroyed; there's been some pretty big injuries. So I thought, 'This is it, I am heading towards the catch fence.' But . . . I hit the road first, then went into the wall, then I saw a heap of flames and I can't really remember what else. I was lucky. You just have to land the wrong way and it's all bad."

I would have retired on the spot after his rocket ride and Dans outcome. He's got bigger ones than I do if he doesn't.

racer2c

10-20-11, 02:20 PM

NASCAR addressed this successfully with ROOF FLAPS as the impetus was established from 1988's tALledega wreck with Bobby Allison who flew into the fence backwards. That was a flying issue. Edwards and Bodine were launched and the fence did exactly as it was intended.

IRL has done nothing to address the flying. The only example I'll offer is Mario's flight at Indy...if a 4 inch piece of styrofoam can get a car 25 feet off the ground, spinning end over end for over 100 feet, that's an accomplishment. IF the car just flipped over on its rollhoop, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And time after time we've learned just what it will do, and the IRL won't do.

NASCAR has always tried to keep their speeds below 200mph. I remember hearing how they think 180 is the 'sweet spot' for their cars. Not to beat this into the ground but with the right car the speeds can increase. It is sad testament to the irl that we can look back 15 years to find safer racing. A travesty, really.

datachicane

10-20-11, 02:35 PM

IRL has done nothing to address the flying. The only example I'll offer is Mario's flight at Indy...if a 4 inch piece of styrofoam can get a car 25 feet off the ground, spinning end over end for over 100 feet, that's an accomplishment. IF the car just flipped over on its rollhoop, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And time after time we've learned just what it will do, and the IRL won't do.

This bears repeating.
The problem isn't speed, or ovals, but incompetence. I'm pretty sure you could get dead in a car flying 25' through the air whether it was going 220 or 120. Build a better catchfence, and the next one flies 35' and lands in the stands anyway.

We've known there's been a problem since Renna, but the Hulmans' reservoir of incompetence and stupidity is apparently limitless, and shows no sign of tapping out any time soon. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever problems may or may not arise with the new car will be dealt with in precisely the same ineffective manner.

Spicoli

10-20-11, 03:00 PM

Will Power, PT, and the rest of them are just idiots if they strap back into these flying lawn darts. You KNOW your day is coming, yet you do it anyway?

Who's the circus clown now!?:thumdown:

Lux Interior

10-20-11, 03:03 PM

Will Power, PT, and the rest of them are just idiots if they strap back into these flying lawn darts. You KNOW your day is coming, yet you do it anyway?

Who's the circus clown now!?:thumdown:

Allow me to quote Memo Moreno from Driven, who said "we race, we take chances":D

Ed_Severson

10-20-11, 03:46 PM

I think there's some merit to the idea of creating a better catch fence, but I'll be damned if I can think of a practical idea that wouldn't bankrupt half the ovals in North America.

Chief

10-20-11, 03:50 PM

Allow me to quote Memo Moreno from Driven, who said "we race, we take chances":D
That's the solution then...have giant ponds that the cars can fly into for a safe splashdown. :driven:

cameraman

10-20-11, 05:06 PM

And now I present a level of stupidity rarely achieved in the history of humanity.

Why Dan Wheldon's Death Should Mean the End of Auto Racing (http://www.good.is/post/why-dan-wheldon-s-death-should-mean-the-end-of-auto-racing/)

Ed_Severson

10-20-11, 05:16 PM

And now I present a level of stupidity rarely achieved in the history of humanity.

I hope that was a tongue-in-cheek remark. I have, in my 33 years, met plenty of people exactly that stupid or worse.

Trevor Longman

10-20-11, 05:16 PM

:rofl: :saywhat:

gerhard911

10-20-11, 05:24 PM

racer2c

10-20-11, 05:24 PM

I hope that was a tongue-in-cheek remark. I have, in my 33 years, met plenty of people exactly that stupid or worse.

Wait until you are 43. Your ability to detect stupidity increases exponentially with age.

NismoZ

10-20-11, 05:28 PM

Wow. I guess football will be banned next, a kid just died in a game last weekend.

Napoleon

10-20-11, 07:22 PM

Wait until you are 43.

or 50.

SurfaceUnits

10-20-11, 07:36 PM

Racing Truth

10-20-11, 08:15 PM

"In an interview in June with the Globe and Mail newspaper, Mr. Bernard said the change to restarts would mean more "carnage and wrecks," adding that "danger will be an important element of the sport."

Chris Paff approves this staemaent

Meh, it's the marketer in him. Plus, "carnage" on restarts is a whole different matter than Sunday. Getting up to speed- not at full song, versus real pack racing.

Not to mention, in truth, double-file restarts (well, when the drivers tried it:shakehead) didn't hurt anyone.

A bit cringe-worthy? Fine. Fireable? No.

gerhard911

10-20-11, 08:19 PM

There are a couple of posters in this thread who would be well advised to take it to Track Forum. Doubtful they will convince anyone here :gomer:

Racing Truth

10-20-11, 08:34 PM

There are a couple of posters in this thread who would be well advised to take it to Track Forum. Doubtful they will convince anyone here :gomer:

Psst, hey Severson, I think he's talking about us!:gomer:;)

Fully realize I'm in the minority and I don't mean to come off as evangelizing for anything. I'd only say that proving me wrong/making me look foolish should be pretty easy if you're right.

Oh, no one's answered my basic "then what?" Fine, blow up the "IRL"/ICS and, figuratively, IMS. Then what?

Ed_Severson

10-20-11, 08:44 PM

Psst, hey Severson, I think he's talking about us!:gomer:;)

Meh. There's at least one thing that every person who's ever slung that insult my way has in common -- they've all spent more time at Track Forum than I ever will. ;)

gerhard911

10-20-11, 08:59 PM

Meh. There's at least one thing that every person who's ever slung that insult my way has in common -- they've all spent more time at Track Forum than I ever will. ;)

NFW - I don't EVER follow links to that dump, let alone go there otherwise. But it's good to know you guys recognized your position in this "discussion".

Chief

10-20-11, 09:36 PM

Psst, hey Severson, I think he's talking about us!:gomer:;)Oh, no one's answered my basic "then what?" Fine, blow up the "IRL"/ICS and, figuratively, IMS. Then what?
Nothing has to be blown up, just fix the damn problems, and stop looking to blame everything else for them.

Cars are going to get in fences, but only because of an accident not because of the ineptitude of the series ownership.

If correcting THAT takes down the series and Indy, so be it.

racer2c

10-20-11, 10:40 PM

Nothing has to be blown up, just fix the damn problems, and stop looking to blame everything else for them.

Cars are going to get in fences, but only because of an accident not because of the ineptitude of the series ownership.

If correcting THAT takes down the series and Indy, so be it.

I watched a video with Ryan hunter ray who was testing the '12 car and a couple of things stood out from what he said, 1) he was impressed with the increased power and 2) the seating position was too upright and that would definitely have to be changed. Maybe, just maybe this was the straw that broke the camels back and the irl idiots will finally wake up and start to fix this bs. The men who died and all those injured, deserve that.

DagoFast

10-20-11, 10:50 PM

Meh, it's the marketer in him. Plus, "carnage" on restarts is a whole different matter than Sunday. Getting up to speed- not at full song, versus real pack racing.

Not to mention, in truth, double-file restarts (well, when the drivers tried it:shakehead) didn't hurt anyone.

A bit cringe-worthy? Fine. Fireable? No.

Psst, hey Severson, I think he's talking about us!:gomer:;)

Fully realize I'm in the minority and I don't mean to come off as evangelizing for anything. I'd only say that proving me wrong/making me look foolish should be pretty easy if you're right.

Oh, no one's answered my basic "then what?" Fine, blow up the "IRL"/ICS and, figuratively, IMS. Then what?

I guess it must be far cheaper to deploy minions out on the interwebz to do PR spin any time the brown stuff hits the fan than it would be to just fix the cars. You fellers enjoy them bronze passes and the free tenderloins.! :thumbup:

miatanut

10-20-11, 11:25 PM

Psst, hey Severson, I think he's talking about us!:gomer:;)

Fully realize I'm in the minority and I don't mean to come off as evangelizing for anything. I'd only say that proving me wrong/making me look foolish should be pretty easy if you're right.

Oh, no one's answered my basic "then what?" Fine, blow up the "IRL"/ICS and, figuratively, IMS. Then what?
We already know Ed's angle on this. He's just a little too close to the situation, having worked in the industry, while most of us enjoy the more distanced view of a fan.

In your case, we can present published words that betray their intent and you choose to ignore them and say they don't mean what they obviously mean.

In my case, I figured out the IMS clan's game in 1973 (1970 having been the first Indy I ever saw) and became more and more repulsed by it until 1992 when I walked away from IMS for good. Some folks around here figured them out in 1964. The danger is an inherent part of their marketing plan.

While a bunch of us were watching auto racing for an exciting show of technical development, the IMS clan realized there was a much larger market of people out there excited by the potential of disaster, and they determined they were in the entertainment business and catered to that.

Now, the sport is completely screwed-up, the technical development is gone and only the entertainment (from some people's perspective) remains.

Ed_Severson

10-20-11, 11:37 PM

In your case, we can present published words that betray their intent and you choose to ignore them and say they don't mean what they obviously mean.

No offense, but earlier in the thread you practically fell all over yourself trying to make the point that you don't pay any attention to IndyCar and don't know anything about their current events. Then you immediately turned around and trumpeted one solitary quote from a press conference where the term "side-by-side" was uttered and you're claiming you're an expert on the design process for the new car.

Those can't both be true.

You've tried to divine intent based on catchphrases. I've given you an actual technical argument. I'd love to see a rebuttal to that, but I won't hold my breath.

SurfaceUnits

10-20-11, 11:51 PM

them newfangledextendedskirts is gone to make fine launching ramps for side impacts liek WIll POwers had SUnday :gomer:

miatanut

10-21-11, 12:56 AM

No offense, but earlier in the thread you practically fell all over yourself trying to make the point that you don't pay any attention to IndyCar and don't know anything about their current events. Then you immediately turned around and trumpeted one solitary quote from a press conference where the term "side-by-side" was uttered and you're claiming you're an expert on the design process for the new car.

Those can't both be true.

You've tried to divine intent based on catchphrases. I've given you an actual technical argument. I'd love to see a rebuttal to that, but I won't hold my breath.

You see Smack exists for the purpose of making fun of the IRL. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It takes fodder (which the IRL provides by the boatload) to have something to make fun of. Folks there are good about providing links to the IRL's latest idiocy so it's easy to verify.

It's not necessary to know their schedule, who the drivers are, who the teams are, or anything. If the site goes back up, I will probably be able to locate the Bobby Unser quote with a small fraction of the work there it would take to find it on the web myself.

The particular quote I found yesterday from the announcement of the new car was to respond to an accusation I had made up up the business of Al Unser Jr (but now I'm pretty sure it was Bobby) saying the new car design should promote side by side racing. I haven't found that one. I found the announcement about the new car with about ten minutes of searching. With more time investment there are lots more out there, and some have been posted by others in this thread. The supply is nearly endless.

You can believe what you want to believe, but if you can't see that the IMS clan actively markets the danger aspect, and whips up whoopy new "traditions", like side by side restarts (idiocy of the highest order) in order to create more "drama", then it just means you aren't willing to see it, not that the facts aren't plain as day.

miatanut

10-21-11, 01:02 AM

You've tried to divine intent based on catchphrases. I've given you an actual technical argument. I'd love to see a rebuttal to that, but I won't hold my breath.

Maybe it's one of these 'half empty/half full' things.

Your position is they widened the middle of the car to improve safety.

My position is they widened the middle of the car so the drivers would drive two or even three wide around an oval, lap after lap, to create manufactured drama. If the cars weren't wider in the middle, the drivers would do what they could to get out of that position. Even slowing down.

Indy

10-21-11, 02:31 AM

Who cares? The bad guys won. The sport is dead. Indy is dead. All evidence to the contrary is propaganda. Sorry about Dan, but let's face it, he was part of the "show" and he knew it.

Shouldn't we be talking about BBQ or hard drives or something?

Ziggy

10-21-11, 07:40 AM

IIRC, these idiots made the cars cockpit wider in the name of safety. This goes against all engineering wisdom, more room to bang around, more structures held with fasteners, etc.

Ed works in the "industry"? Really? In what capacity?

The problem again, after all the wrangling, is the fact that car has a known history to fly into the fences. Coupled with the fact that the slowest car can hold up the fastest car as long as it is the slower cars driver aim to do so, and you have a recipe for disaster.

and I agree with the poster on his take of the new car, as it was designed with status quo in mind, meaning the pack racing. The rear body work is just to cut down on the frequency of the fliers.

and knowing several of the nut and bolt types in the "Industry", their take is that this body work will no survive the 2012 season for a multitude of reasons (and I'm talking about the rear sponsons) exposure to damage, extensive clean up, frequency of said damage and cleanup, and finally cost.

Dallarah should have never even been considered, it was a kick back deal from day one. The car is a sod, the things that were required to be fixed upon their first inception are ledgendary and comical.

and the comments of "that other" forum of late are a great indicator of what a group of bumbling idiots the Earl management are playing to.

High Sided

10-21-11, 10:07 AM

looking back did they ever do anything about the ridged back breaking gearbox?
i remember it poking holes in the original safer barrier when cars would back directly into it. don't see the punctures in the wall so did they go back to gearboxs that explode on impact or has the soft wall been the savior of breaking backs?

High Sided

10-21-11, 07:22 PM

so nobody has an answer about the gearbox, did they at least get it behind the rear tires? maybe that's why in no longer pokes holes in the barrier.

miatanut

10-21-11, 07:39 PM

so nobody has an answer about the gearbox, did they at least get it behind the rear tires? maybe that's why in no longer pokes holes in the barrier.

There was a carbon fiber bit they made which they called an "attenuator" which was supposed to crush to absorb some of the impact before the casing hit the wall.

I think that was in the ancient history of the IRL and later cars went to a more modern transverse gearbox.

Spicoli

10-21-11, 11:19 PM

Local media reporting that Ropin Randy has asked that all the drivers meet with him on Monday. Optional meeting, and closed to media.

And now, time for my editorial: the danger/possibility of death and serious injury are absolutely part of the gomer marketing plan. It's pathetic, and it's real. It's pretty bad when the biggest story of the year in your sport is a senseless death and the ensuing debate on what a POS the wagon is how it flies and caused this carnage. This isn't 1922. We have the knowledge and can avoid this stupidity. F1 has evolved sensibly and they have a fraction of the injuries and deaths that the IRL does. We let the IMS be in chagre and this is what you get: crappy cars, no respect, ride buyers, a revolving parade of marketing strategies (that have all failed) serious injuries and death, no fans, no TV viewers, and all in the name of preserving Indy. I say shut the damn thing down, admit your drove it into the ground, and let the the sport heal and start over.

Man up Randy, and just walk away. Don't get sucked I to the koolaid.:thumdown::flame::thumdown:

Spicoli

10-21-11, 11:21 PM

Because you are not going to change anything. Nothing.

racer2c

10-22-11, 12:06 AM

What ^ he said. :thumbup:

Rocketdoc

10-22-11, 12:16 AM

It's really not, but keep telling yourself that.

I think it is.

There hasn't been a change in their philosophy of what they thought the fan wanted; side-by-side racing, and there's nothing to indicate that they've gotten any smarter since Las Vegas.

Rocketdoc

10-22-11, 12:21 AM

Chief

10-22-11, 01:23 AM

Ok...so here's a political angle...

What right does Bernard have with the drivers?? Owners own the cars...or am I naive? Where is the owners voice, or do they just do what the series tells them to do?

I have labeled what has occurred since Bernard took office as "the media gag", whereas the media plays up the "puff" aspect of Indycar/IRL versus the true aspect of a death circus that the series really is. This is why Robin Miller expresses remorse...because HE was the premiere exposer of IMS/IRl/Indycar refuse like "our cars don't fly" before, yet since Bernard comes onboard it's all rosy.

This Monday meeting, IMHO, is nothing but a re-organizing of the drivers into a collective "gag-order" re-certification. Just like I'm sure Mr. Miller has already verified his cooperation...and other s too, because they want Indy and the indycars to survive.

I have no trust or faith that this IMS organization can conduct an honest investigation or implement in a transparent way solutions to help move the sport forward. The drivers will vote this ******* and his minions forward to continue this farce ONLY because they are weak now.

Seriously, we can come up with dozens of scenarios but it will always wind up with Hulmans/IMS not giving control and voting for status-quo.

That is their legacy, and it will be the death of AOW, because of it. I'll tell you what...if they come out of a meeting with nothing to offer...I told you so.

RTKar

10-22-11, 08:34 AM

Reinventing the wheel for 16 years and coming up with squares should tell you something; the spec, circuits, fanbase, marketing strategy...the entire irl concept. Vuckovich flew to his death, Sneva almost did. They've known for years wheel to wheel contact is dangerous. When did Indy cars try Daytona and found it unsafe? fifty years ago?, If things don't change another driver will pay for it, maybe some fans as well, and they can't afford that, there aren't many left.

stroker

10-22-11, 10:05 AM

It's an "optional" meeting. I'll be very curious to see which team owners "require" their drivers to be there and which do not. Let's try to find out who doesn't show up for the meeting. It's be nice if one of them took a recorder with them.

Andrew Longman

10-22-11, 11:34 AM

This Monday meeting, IMHO, is nothing but a re-organizing of the drivers into a collective "gag-order" re-certification.

What happens if Dario and a few other drivers just say screw it and walk away?

Yes the Hulmans will be in charge... but of what?

I know... they don't particularly care... but will anyone else?

How many promoters/tracks even want anything to do with this anymore? A few events this year did OK, but those mostly included ALMS (with its own kettle of problems)

Ripped

10-22-11, 11:54 AM

Racing Truth

10-22-11, 03:19 PM

Of all the drivers out there, Dario is IMHO the most likely to just walk away from this. He has nothing left to prove and this really has to hit home for him. The meeting in Indy on Monday is going to be very telling I think.

I'd agree with that.

Apparently, this meeting will "ruffle feathers in race control." The end of TGBB, I wonder? Side note: That d-bag has lasted 13 seasons??!!:shakehead

To Chief's point, the drivers SHOULD show up, owners' feelings be damned. Don't give a **** what the self-interested tool of owners think anymore.

Napoleon

10-22-11, 04:26 PM

SurfaceUnits

10-22-11, 04:37 PM

I'd agree with that.

Apparently, this meeting will "ruffle feathers in race control." The end of TGBB, I wonder? Side note: That d-bag has lasted 13 seasons??!!:shakehead

To Chief's point, the drivers SHOULD show up, owners' feelings be damned. Don't give a **** what the self-interested tool of owners think anymore.

they just don't treat you like them self-innersted Hulmans do eh...anybody who's picked a side in this crap is a morAn

Chief

10-22-11, 05:16 PM

"There is such a thing as Crisis Management 101. And they flunked it.” -from NYTimes article link

Man, they are taking a beatin. They didn't even ring the bell for the start of the first round and Indycar is almost out on the ropes. Are they smart enough to throw in the towel?

datachicane

10-22-11, 05:27 PM

What happens if Dario and a few other drivers just say screw it and walk away?

Yes the Hulmans will be in charge... but of what?

I know... they don't particularly care... but will anyone else?

How many promoters/tracks even want anything to do with this anymore? A few events this year did OK, but those mostly included ALMS (with its own kettle of problems)

How quickly we forget- don't you remember 1996, when the Hulmans proved Cars 'n' Stars don't mean a damn thing, that it's all about the track? They'd happily fill the series with wankers, just like they did in '96, and never miss a beat.

Simply put, they do not give a rip about anything on earth that is not a specific piece of real estate that the family owns, including the cars, drivers, teams, history, money, etc., etc., etc. History as shown they'll happily piss every one of those things away in order to ensure absolute fealty and job security for their underqualified high-school buddies, lackies and sycophants.

Racing Truth

10-22-11, 07:34 PM

I just saw this and have not read it yet but the NY Times has an article just about Bernard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/sports/autoracing/a-drivers-death-has-raised-questions-about-indycars-leader.html?hpw

Pretty fair, I'd say, with surprising, though not fully fleshed out, history going back to '79. CART, TG, the '09 coup, etc.

Gives credit to Randy for trying to grow the sport, getting Lotus (for now), and Chevy, the new car, etc, and dealing in a world (OW racing) of sharks.

As for the "They need to be more public/out in front on this" line, what should they (Bernard, etc.) say? No significant decisions were going to be made this week, so I suspect press conferences, etc. would have amounted to little more than navel-gazing.

Chief

10-22-11, 09:21 PM

As for the "They need to be more public/out in front on this" line, what should they (Bernard, etc.) say? No significant decisions were going to be made this week, so I suspect press conferences, etc. would have amounted to little more than navel-gazing.
You're right! This is a PR disaster, and no lip service is worse than lip service, kudos to IMS for doing nothing. :laugh:

I hope during this 1 week hiatus they hired lawyers and a top notch PR firm to craft a way out of this. Pleading ignorance (like usual) makes the sharks even more hungry.