Disciple of INDYCAR Weblog

November 10, 2011

The Current Direction of Indy Car Is Turning Scary

Filed under: The Disciple Blogs — Disciple of INDYCAR @ 12:25 pm

Becoming beholden to Indy Car owners has never worked for anyone. Not Andrew Craig. Not Joe Heitzler. Not Chris Pook. Not anyone. Not even when they picked one of their own, Bobby Rahal. As a result, my advice is for Randy Bernard to take his head out of their collective arse and get back to independent, IMS-centric thought. And stop being so chummy with drivers.

The relationship with owners needs to be tense. Not cozy. The smartest thing Robin Miller ever said to Randy Bernard was never to trust owners because all of them are snakes. That may be a bit of a stretch but history has repeatedly shown an owner-alignment in running the series usually turns out to be disastrous.

Now that we have experienced the worst thing a racing community can, the rumored knee-jerking is over the top. There is talk of:

-No more 1.5 mile ovals

-As few as 3 or 4 ovals on the schedule

-Canopies on the race cars

Come on. 1.5 mile ovals have been in the DNA of Indy Car since the mid-1990s. The oval racing heritage of Indy Car goes back a century. The leadership and ownership needs to remember what built the sport.

Canopies on high speed open wheel race cars only mean there will be additional unusual ways in which drivers could die. My thought is that fences should be enhanced as walls were with SAFER. There are enough creative minds to solve the fence problem. Logic would seem to dictate that the first thing tracks should do is place the steel posts on the grandstand side of the mesh instead of the track side.

When will the 2012 schedule be released officially?

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. It’s not surprising that a number of ideas are being considered that a month ago would seem unnecessary. The schedule will be released after the investigation into the crash, because I assume the schedule could be affected by the results of the investigation.

    Comment by redcar — November 10, 2011 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

  2. I wonder if placing the posts further back, off the fence, while “hanging” the fence from the top overhang, while attaching it to the wall behind the SAFER barrier at the bottom would improve that aspect. The fence would serve as more a cushion, possibly a more “net” effect?

    Comment by The Truth — November 10, 2011 @ 5:57 pm | Reply

  3. Come in the present defender. Quit being past focused like CART fans. We need fans who live in the present and future.
    Today it was announced INDYCAR is going to China. This is great news for sponsors, the sport, and its fans. This is INDYCAR. Quit whining for something that is no longer with us. Or maybe all you CART and IRL fans can just watch old races on youtube and leave those of us living now alone.

    Editor’s Note: You may have missed it. I am all for new direction.

    Comment by INDYCAR Fan — November 10, 2011 @ 8:00 pm | Reply

  4. All this appears to mean is that they are using Las Vegas to speed up the direction they were already going. I think they want to be F1 in America, and the current ride buying just makes that decision easier. That is what they wanted in 1995. The IMS is just a historical embarassment they have to deal with. I am more convinced than ever that Tony George had the right vision, but sadly was not the individual to pull it off.

    The league may be able to continue running for a few years, as long as the municipal money holds out. But its fan base will grow stagnant or begin to decline as oval fans leave. And if the municipal money ever runs out, and it will, we will have CART demise #3.

    The costs of Indycar are going to have to come down drasticallly if this league is going to run on anything but street carnivals. That was one of Tony’s goals.

    For ovals and for permanent road courses, the ultimate answer may be league ownership of the tracks. Where have we seen that before?

    Comment by Bob F. — November 10, 2011 @ 8:46 pm | Reply

    • You lost me at “IMS is just a historical embarassment.” There’s plenty more to disagree with, but what’s the point after that statement.

      Comment by redcar — November 11, 2011 @ 6:37 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: