764 replies to this topic

[Buford]

But that has been answered over and over. CART failed because they had to make a profit and TG did not. They kept most of their fans that followed the sport on a regular basis. IRL had almost none to begin with. But neither side kept the casual fans who did not really know what they were seeing and now were often seeing the IRL crashfests with Buzz and Guido instead of Unser and Andretti. They didn't know where they went.

They didn't know what happened. They didn't read NSSN or subscribe to racing papers. They tuned into IRL crapfests thinking they were seeing what they always had seen, instead found races with half the race run under yellow and nobody they ever heard of, and stopped watching races at all. Many did not even know there was a CART or IRL. It certainly wasn't mentioned on a IRL broadcast. This was touted as the real thing. They just knew it was no good anymore and they turned to something else.

The real race fans stayed. What you don't understand is the half that left were not passionate fans, they were casual fans who liked racing, saw garbage, and said, I don't care about this anymore. These people were needed just like horse racing needs the people who tune into the Kentucky Derby once a year. It makes the demographic that sells sponsors. With them gone, those left were not enough to keep a series in business that needed to make a profit.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Buford

The real race fans stayed. What you don't understand is the half that left were not passionate fans, they were casual fans who liked racing, saw garbage, and said, I don't care about this anymore. These people were needed just like horse racing needs the people who tune into the Kentucky Derby once a year. It makes the demographic that sells sponsors. With them gone, those left were not enough to keep a series in business that needed to make a profit.

I do understand, just don't neccessarily agree 100%. Why did these casual fans always have to flip to IRL and go oh that sux? Why didn't they ever flip to CART and go "Wow theres real OW racing?" Are saying the casual fan, once the spectacle of Indy was reduced to crap, just gave up. I'd say if CART had done it properly the US 500 would have captured these same fans, if its product was so superior. So yes, I see your points just don't follow the line that that was the total reason for the destruction of OW racing in the US.

And I'm still searcing for your Super Modifieds one day

[Buford]

I don't know why half the fans left the sport for sure. I have never seen a survey. It took a number of years. It did not happen overnight. Indy TV ratings dropped nearly in half immediately. The IRL was on ABC. CART was usually on ESPN and later only Speed. Ratings for both series dropped from around a 3 to a 1 or under, a 2/3 drop over time. We killed 6 spectators in two years on ovals. Oval attendance plummeted for good reasons. It was not important enough to get killed over.

The oval races looked rinky dink on TV with so few people in the stands. I am sure that turned off many casual viewers who wondered why if this is a big deal, nobody is there? The road races remained strong in most places and still are. It was the ovals that dropped. So TV viewing and race attendance both dropped. There were probably a myriad of reasons. Some people left because they did know what was happening and were pissed at both sides. But IMO most left when they saw IRL races in the first 3 or 4 years which were nothing more than yellow flag laps after one incompetent after another slammed the wall and went to the hospital. One a race on average had hospital injuries. Lots of casual fans didn't have the stomach for that.

[Turn13]

Originally posted by tifosi
However like you I bemoan the loss of Indy. I don't go back as far as you but I do remmeber the days of Johncock, Rutherford, Andretti (the dad not the sperm weasel ), the Unsers and AJ. Those were relly great days. To this day I still remember my frist trip to the brickyard, watching Nelson Piquet make his debut (and his subsequent horrible crash). It is a tremendous place. Ive visted Daytona and Charlotte and neither even come close to holding a candle to Indy. Hey even the golf course is cool.

I think I was a pretty loyal fan of Champ Cars, or IndyCar, or even of CART, but the series stopped having the same meaning for me once they lost Indy, Phoenix, Michigan, Nazareth, Andretti, De Ferran, Bettenhausen, Mears, Penske, Unser, Unser Jr, Rutherford, Gurney, Ganassi, Green, Nunn, 50% of Rahal, 33% of Fernandez, Toyota, PPG, and Honda. Especially Indy.

Luckily for me, the IRL and the Indy 500 still have Phoenix, Michigan, Nazareth, Motegi, Milwaukee, Fontana, Homestead, Pikes Peak, Andretti, Mears, Penske, Unser, Unser Jr, Rutherford, Cheever, Ganassi, Green, Nunn, 50% of Rahal, Letterman, Fernandez, Panther, Toyota, Chevy, and Honda, along with Dixon, Wheldon, Rice, Hornish, Castroneves, Brack (I hope), Barron, Herta, Scheckter, Manning, the Indy history and tradition, and the SAFER barrier. And maybe even Bruno and Carl ~ don't laugh, Bufe

If not for the boycott, we might have had all of these the last eight years, plus Tony Stewart and JJ Yeley and Ford just for kicks, and maybe kept Mercedes, PPG, Goodyear and Infiniti as well. Surely nobody would suggest that such a scenario wouldn't have served US OWR better than the boycott, which accomplished nothing but a staggering loss of popularity, and led to the eventual bankruptcy of CART.

[Buford]

Nobody is buying your convoluted use of the term boycott. Give it up. TG purposedly set terms for racing at Indy he knew would not be acceptable and set off the disaster. Terms he had to recind a year later after even he realized they were embarrassing the sport. He changed the rules to inferior and dangerous equipment that resulted in over 70 driver injuries. He obsoleted CARTs cars to run at Indy and replaced them with crap nobody wanted, including the fans. To race at Indy you had to buy his crap. That is not a boycott. It is resisting insanity. That is why he bears ultimately the blame. No IRL, no disaster.

[917k]

Lets end this thing on post 306........the IRL is NOT largest racing series in the world.

I bet there will be complete concensus on this.

[lemmy caution]

I hate the I*L....LOTS .

[shaggy]

Originally posted by tifosi


Yes it would because what is now F1 would die and the GPWC would become in essence F1. As a matter of fact look at this scenario.

You may be right, but I think it is a strong assumption to believe that GPWC would become F1. It took decades for F1 to become F1. As in futbol, The World Cup maybe replaced but no one is willing to bet on it or to disturb what it has become.
Which series would you follow ? Which series would be shown worldwide ? Sadly, the vast majority of F1 fans don't follow it as closely as fans of other, smaller, series follow their series. Just look at what happens in Colombia when Montoya drops out of a race - easily, over half of the people turn off their tv sets.
In the US, the split happened at the worst time because Nascar took over the landsacape and, with cable, people had too many options to choose from without bothering about the politics of OW racing.

Do remember that neither F1, futbol nor The Tour de France became what they are overnight. It is not easy at all to just step in and take over F1 as you assume the GPWC would be able to do.

That is the reason why I was totally opposed to the GPWC. Losing CART was bad enough, I did not want to lose F1, too.

shaggy

[Pete Aaron]

T13, you are down to only a few of TG's straw horses, in the past you have defended every tenet to emanate from ims. Now you are only down to less than a handful of issues that you claim TG was clairvoyant on, stuff like "more downforce" in the irl which is a fallacy, there are no set wing angles at indy, which in some peoples eyes are the exact cause for all the cars imitating airplanes these days at your favorite irl race. Claiming that TG envisioned the radically new idea of reducing horsepower seems to be another stalking horse of yours. Wrong again, TG has cost the teams and manufacturers zillions of bucks in rejiggering his engine rules year after year through an utterly idiotic scheme. CART had continually reduced HP throughout it's run by reducing blown pressures, succesfully and without much cost, what did the 2.65 start out with 20 odd years ago, something like 70 inches of boost, and incrementally drew it down to near atomosperic pressure.
TG just bangs the gavel and dictates new engine designs from the crank up every couple of years.
How many completely new engine designs have the irl had in their short career?
Reducing displacement is far more costly than reducing turbo pressure.
Placing the laurels on TG for the design of the SAFER barrier is hilarious, who should we laud for thinking up tyre barriers? Straw Bales? Concrete Walls? Run Off Areas?
Surely you discount the fact that Goodyear worked closely with the Brazilian short oval folks on CART's circuit in the design of the deformable wall they came up with after Blundells terrible crash there, the SAFER wall is not that much greater an advance as you seem to think than anything else listed above.
Lets just forget the fact that of late the pro race teams have outfoxed the irl rules committee at every turn by running negative (!) trim on the fronts wings to mask the grossly oversized and zero angled barndoors TG has dictated and in effect made the barriers less of a concern than the catch fences at your every day oval track.
T13, you'll never take off those rose (brick) colored glasses and realize that by far, probably in the entire history of motor racing, and without a doubt at ims, no one has been as destructive as Tony George.
But hey, I felt that way the day the bonehead let NASCAR in the place and whored the snakepit for a PGA 'event', long before the split.
So as time goes by you'll have less and less to argue that what TG has done for the sport will out weigh what he's done to harm the sport.
Doesn't matter to me anymore, but what you hold so dear, the irl and ims, is a fraction of what it was.

[KenC]

Originally posted by Turn13
By definition, it was a boycott. By definition, it was not a lockout.

"By [your] definition it was a boycott. By [your] definition it was not a lockout."

You seem obsessed with making this distinction, so I'll just skip all the other nonsense, and take a look at your reasoning for the above.

Originally posted by Turn13
A lockout would mean that they couldn't participate, even if they tried. That wasn't the case, although they could choose not to participate, as a show of protest, or one of coercion. That is what they did. That is a boycott. And you could look it up.

They had the means to participate. Some of them did exactly that, and showed up. Explain how that works with a lockout. :

Uhm, you mean some CART teams "showed up", and raced at Indy?!? How was that possible if they were "boycott"ing? "That is what they did....And you could look it up." See, it's not too hard to use your own words to prove the exact opposite point. Your very own words.

What you DON'T understand, is that the 25/8 rule, while allowing individual teams to enter, effectively barred the whole series from entering. Do you know what tacit means? Well, it was a tacit lockout. The 25/8 may not have had bold letters calling it a lockout rule, but the effect was the same, and that makes it a tacit lockout, but much more subtle. Of the SERIES, of course. There will always be a few individuals who will go their own way, and seek out their own interests. So, your confusion stems from the fact that you are looking at individual teams, and not the whole series. Once you think of the 25/8 rule and how it affect CART as a SERIES, you'll see it was as effective as a lockout. Case closed.

[Turn13]

Originally posted by KenC
"By [your] definition it was a boycott. By [your] definition it was not a lockout."

By Webster's definition.

Originally posted by Buford
Nobody is buying your convoluted use of the term boycott.

See above

Originally posted by KenC
Uhm, you mean some CART teams "showed up", and raced at Indy?!? How was that possible if they were "boycott"ing? "That is what they did....And you could look it up." See, it's not too hard to use your own words to prove the exact opposite point. Your very own words.

It was possible because a boycott is voluntary. A lockout is not. A team can cross a boycott line. They cannot cross a lockout line. Admitting that CART teams participated, voluntarily, means there could not have been a lockout. We all know that the other teams stayed away by their own decision - a boycott by any definition.

Originally posted by Pete Aaron T13, you are down to only a few of TG's straw horses...

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression. I do hope we have put to rest forever the "lockout" nonsense, however;). If any of those other safety developments had been as effective and practical a solution as the SAFER barrier, there wouldn't be a need for the SAFER barrier. I thought thr rubber barrier at Rio was great, but the application didn't lend itself to as many tracks because of it's size (width), and its large deformability. Whoever developed runoffs and hay bales deserves credit, but I don't think they are the result of a single persons' self-funded development.

Your comments on hp and downforce seem almost contradictory; are you actually saying that the IRL is using too much hp and not enough downforce? That's certainly not the cliche "knock" that so many detractors repeat, without realizing or acknowledging what the real, relative numbers are. I listed the two factors because of the fallacy of so many people complaining about lower hp and higher downforce in the IRL when CART, at its best oval racing spec (and also its most recent) had the same objective, and very similar numbers in hp and downforce.

I appreciate your effort to base your arguments on facts, but I am still waiting for a response to this:

Originally posted by Turn13 two days ago:
In hindsight, given that CART pretty much ruined everything they were doing: damaged the race by boycotting, sued or got sued by practically everyone they dealt with along the way, and yet still ended up belatedly trying to do all those same things that TG set out to do such as lower hp, more downforce, cost controls and a variety of attempts at a racy oval formula (but not nearly as effectively), and even subsidizing U.S. talent... all things TG has been pilloried for the last seven years... I think he had a point. And on top of that, TG also fully funded and developed the SAFER barrier, renovated IMS, and established the home of the USGP.

Please feel free to indicate specifically which of the above points are not undeniably factual.

I'm not saying TG is a genius, or a savior; I'm just saying he had a point and that recent history pretty much agrees with that position. But again, please feel free to indicate specifically which of the above points are not undeniably factual. I am really interested in your response... anyone's.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Turn13


If not for the boycott, we might have had ... and Ford just for kicks...

I don't think you'll see Ford at the Indy 500 until Tony is dead and buried. Do you not recall 1996? This is the year that Ford supplied the entire field with 2.65 liter turbos (except for one Ilmor, I think) while Tony's 3.5 liter wheezers were being slapped together. Ford implored Tony to find an accord with CART. Ford even ignored Tony's very public and very idiotic fixation on engine leases (which most if not all IRL competitors have used since the inception). If Ford had pulled the plug on Tony the IRL 500 probably wouldn't have taken place in '96. How did TG reward Ford's act of faith?

[Henri Greuter]

scdecade quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Turn13


If not for the boycott, we might have had ... and Ford just for kicks...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think you'll see Ford at the Indy 500 until Tony is dead and buried. Do you not recall 1996? This is the year that Ford supplied the entire field with 2.65 liter turbos (except for one Ilmor, I think) while Tony's 3.5 liter wheezers were being slapped together. Ford implored Tony to find an accord with CART. Ford even ignored Tony's very public and very idiotic fixation on engine leases (which most if not all IRL competitors have used since the inception). If Ford had pulled the plug on Tony the IRL 500 probably wouldn't have taken place in '96. How did TG reward Ford's act of faith?

===

Not entirery correct scfecade,

The alternative on the Ford XB was that `classic American Institute`and about the highest piece of racing engine technology` any US located engine builder can built.

We all know it, that out of this world piece of extreme racing engine engineering: (US thinking...)
The stockblock twovalve pushrod engine! USAC's biggest obsession in seeing succeed eventually against all those damned English designed and built purebred racing engines.

The turbo Buick V6's and their spin-off, the Menard V6 was also eligible in 1996.

And even then: IRL had to do with the XB engine, CART saw the introduction of the type XD engine already buyt as far as I know that one never made it into an IRL entry.
But indeed: Ford was handsomely rewarded for their willingness to enable IRL to survive that first season in which the Buicks were fast but still couldn't win a thing other than poles.....


Henri Greuter

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
scdecade quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Turn13


If not for the boycott, we might have had ... and Ford just for kicks...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think you'll see Ford at the Indy 500 until Tony is dead and buried. Do you not recall 1996? This is the year that Ford supplied the entire field with 2.65 liter turbos (except for one Ilmor, I think) while Tony's 3.5 liter wheezers were being slapped together. Ford implored Tony to find an accord with CART. Ford even ignored Tony's very public and very idiotic fixation on engine leases (which most if not all IRL competitors have used since the inception). If Ford had pulled the plug on Tony the IRL 500 probably wouldn't have taken place in '96. How did TG reward Ford's act of faith?

===

Not entirery correct scfecade,

...

We all know it, that out of this world piece of extreme racing engine engineering: (US thinking...)
The stockblock twovalve pushrod engine! USAC's biggest obsession in seeing succeed eventually against all those damned English designed and built purebred racing engines.

The turbo Buick V6's and their spin-off, the Menard V6 was also eligible in 1996.

And even then: IRL had to do with the XB engine, CART saw the introduction of the type XD engine already buyt as far as I know that one never made it into an IRL entry.
But indeed: Ford was handsomely rewarded for their willingness to enable IRL to survive that first season in which the Buicks were fast but still couldn't win a thing other than poles.....


Henri Greuter

Of course, you are correct. I probably forgot about the Buick V-6 because, as far as the outcome of the race was concerned, they were irrelevant.

[Henri Greuter]

Scdecade wrote

Of course, you are correct. I probably forgot about the Buick V-6 because, as far as the outcome of the race was concerned, they were irrelevant.

===

Well I could have forgotten about them as well if it wasn't for a few pole outings and `my man Luyendyk` earning the distinction of being only one of two men who ever nursed such a
`Glorious piece of American Hi-tech in racing engine technology` long enough to drive the full 200 laps at Indy. Even if he had to pass Jacques while he finished his race to unlap himself and being eligible to do that last lap. And I must grant it, that V6 had an nice sound like so many 6'es do.

Nevertheless: Buick?
Field fillers at best. Though it could have been close on one occasion. I forgot at which track the race was held but remember 1996, the first race after the 1996 Indy 500?
Brilliant idea by Tony. Indy was the conclusion of the season before so we had an 1996 IRL champion over three races, the next champion would be crowned after the Indy 500 of '97.
Common sence prevailed and it went back to a season end at the end of '97. But still with the stupid situation of a championship being held with the old turboformula for the first races and then for the new atmo formula. George or IRL logic I suppose...
Same for that brilliant logic of declaring Co-champions that first season of three races with one driver declared champion who never won a race but hey, he drove for Foyt.

Anyway: that first race of what became the 96/97 season: (could it perhaps have been New Hampshire?) Tony Stewart running away with the race (a yawner to begin with, my comp[anion with who'm I saw the race on TV fell asleep!!!) and having a two lap lead at the entire field (!) and then the Menard blowing...
Probably the last ever chance for a Stockblock V6 derived turbo engine to win an Indycar race.

Other secret about Indy 1996:

Fred Treadway almost succeeded in obtraining a Honda Indy engine for his entry that year.
Luyendijk went 239.6 with a Ford XB engine.
He probably would have demolished the 240 barrier if Fred would have got the Honda's.

Mentioning Treadway, can you come up with a better approval how the IRL origins have been trashed and rapidly forgotten in the name of improvement?
One of the premier team owners in the early years of IRL couldn't keep up anymore because of IRL forsaking its own basics: give the small teams and little known drivers a chance to be at Indy.
.........


Henri Greuter

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Turn13 two days ago:

In hindsight, given that CART pretty much ruined everything they were doing: damaged the race by boycotting, sued or got sued by practically everyone they dealt with along the way, and yet still ended up belatedly trying to do all those same things that TG set out to do such as lower hp, more downforce, cost controls and a variety of attempts at a racy oval formula (but not nearly as effectively), and even subsidizing U.S. talent... all things TG has been pilloried for the last seven years... I think he had a point. And on top of that, TG also fully funded and developed the SAFER barrier, renovated IMS, and established the home of the USGP.

Please feel free to indicate specifically which of the above points are not undeniably factual.

Let's just assume that each and every "point" you've made above is undeniably factual. CART ruined everything they were doing by not cooperating with TG and then they turned around and copied "all things TG has been pilloried for the last seven years." The result of copying the IRL is that CART went out of business; therefore, the correct conclusion to draw is that the IRL was right all along. The conclusion to be drawn from CART's adoption of lower hp engines, higher downforce, cost controls, a racy oval formula (not as effective), and subsidized US talent is that Tony George was correct and these are the things the fans (of which there were vastly, vastly more of prior to the IRL) really wanted. You must think we're all a bunch of idiots.

Turn13 you are utterly divorced from reality. The IRL 500 has destroyed the Indy 500 and the fan loyalty and public goodwill built up over generations has been squandered for what? What has been accomplished? The people who worked at Indy for decades (on teams, in hotels, fan magazines, drivers, even the guy who compiled the annual) and the people who built up an eclectic and interesting series built around the 500 (the other 11 months of the year) as a marquee event were pooped on by TG. The IRL cars are crap, the drivers are crap, the tracks are NASCAR re-cycled crap, the series championship is meaningless, and the 500 has been reduced to a week and a half but the TICKET PRICE hasn't gone down. Why doesn't it make sense to you that TG has sucked the value out Indy style racing for the fan? Forget about CART and what they did or didn't do; don't you see that the 500 is a shadow of it's former self?

If someone is bleeding because they were stabbed by a knife doesn't it make sense to remove the blade and heal the wound? Did Tony George offer the CART teams a better deal, better prospects for the future, more stability, more prize money, safer cars, more even handed officiating, and a better story to sell to sponsors? NO! Did TG lower the cost of racing? YES! However, he lowered the cost of racing by the destroying the value of winning. To you those two things are the same thing. To me that makes you a loser.

[Turn13]

Originally posted by scdecade
Let's just assume that each and every "point" you've made above is undeniably factual.

I'm asking you to specifically state which are not. Please

Turn13 you are utterly divorced from reality.

Then please, which of the points above are not specifically true? That's what I'm asking.

Did Tony George offer the CART teams a better deal, better prospects for the future, more stability, more prize money, safer cars, more even handed officiating, and a better story to sell to sponsors?

Obviously, yes. Roger Penske, Pat Patrick, Chip Ganassi and now Bobby Rahal have said so. Definitely beats filing bankruptcy.

Did TG lower the cost of racing? YES! However, he lowered the cost of racing by the destroying the value of winning.

No, there is nothing in the cost controls that have lowered the value of the winning. I don't think the boycott did much for the popularity of it, though.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Turn13

I'm asking you to specifically state which are not. Please

duh, burp, daaaaah, blablablubble, dah... me not argue points. me grant you points. me argue with conclusion. duh...

Then please, which of the points above are not specifically true? That's what I'm asking.

errr...none of your points are worth arguing about. even if they're taken as correct the thing you're using them as supporting evidence for is not correct. ah duh... how dumb would i be to argue for or against the premise of a logical non sequitor? as dumb as you i suppose...

Obviously, yes. Roger Penske, Pat Patrick, Chip Ganassi and now Bobby Rahal have said so. Definitely beats filing bankruptcy.

what planet do you live on? those people know all too well what a crappy deal the IRL and the IRL 500 are. do you think their presence at the IRL 500 is a tacit approval of the disaster Tony has wrought? do you think at all? about anything?

No, there is nothing in the cost controls that have lowered the value of the winning.

your inability to see the impact of the IRL rules on public perception of the 500 as a very extreme and special event is precisely why i think you're a loser.

I don't think the boycott did much for the popularity of it, though.

25/8

[Buford]

His argument is the same as making this one.

If the slaves had just gone along with that good cotton picking job they had, no unemployment, health care on site, food provided, etc, there would never have been that nasty war in 1861 through 1865, and there would be no race relations problems in the USA today.

[Turn13]

Hey, if you can't deny the points, you can't. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

later, 'gators...

[EVL29]

Turn13 wrote...

"In hindsight, given that CART pretty much ruined everything they were doing: damaged the race by boycotting, sued or got sued by practically everyone they dealt with along the way, and yet still ended up belatedly trying to do all those same things that TG set out to do such as lower hp, more downforce, cost controls and a variety of attempts at a racy oval formula (but not nearly as effectively), and even subsidizing U.S. talent... all things TG has been pilloried for the last seven years... I think he had a point. And on top of that, TG also fully funded and developed the SAFER barrier, renovated IMS, and established the home of the USGP.

Please feel free to indicate specifically which of the above points are not undeniably factual. "



Okay,I'll bite.

Point 1)Lower HP,More Downforce and Cost Controls.

CART adopted these measure because they were/are on their deathbed and were looking for a way to survive.How does this apply to 1995? Y'know record ratings,record attendance and record sponsorship and such back then didn't require any of those measures.Did they?

Point 2)Racy Oval Formula

Cart oval racing started to suck when they had to resort gimmicky wings and such to slow the cars on ovals.Of course,this wouldn't have been necessary had they taken their own manufacturers advice and adopted the 1.8 litre Turbo spec back when the Mnfs. proposed it in 97'.They didn't go for it because they were still trying to figure a way to get back to Indy without tossing their entire series down the drain.(That worked well,eh)

Point 3)Subsidizing U.S. talent

I presume your talking about Vasser and Hunter-Reay? Again,in their death throes they tried to do something that would appeal to U.S. fans.They didn't do this before the split because they DIDN'T have to.Or were Lil' Al,Mikey,Jimmy,Herta,Sharp,Lazier and Cheever just figments of my imagination?(we're talking 95' here so maybe they were)


You see,this is why some fans blame TG for the weakness of OW racing in the States these days.He claimed to start the IRL to rectify problems that didn't exist then but Do exist NOW ,largely as a result of the split.

You seem to think CART didn't like or repect Indy.Personally,I think its the exact opposite .Thay loved Indy,just didn't like TG....or at least didn't like the idea of pissing away all the success that they had achieved since they told USAC to suck it.

Indeed,a large part Of CART's demise can be traced to the fact that they seemed to care more about Indy,than their own series.They put off a new engine spec when they had 4(yes,I said FOUR)mnfs advocating such a move.If they had done that they wouldn't have needed to mess with the Oval specs which dragged CART's oval races down to the IRL's level.If they cared more about CART they wouldn't have tried to negotiate a surrender,"under favorable terms",in 1999 which probably didn't look so good in the eyes of potential sponsors.Why sponsor cars in a series that is trying to negotiate itself out of existence? And don't forget,one of the main reasons for going "public" in the first place was to build a "war chest" to outlast TG.

In 2000,things just went from bad to worse.Starting with appointing Rahole to the job of CEO and on to the Texas debacle(cancellation/lawsuit) and then on to Spacergate and then to accepting Toyota's demand for adoption of IRL specs,which pissed off Honda so much,they decided to leave CART(and take Team Green/Andretti and Nunn with them).Penske left(and took Marlboro,De Ferran and Helio with him).Toyota left CART despite getting what they wanted(and took Ganassi with them).CART then rescinded the adoption of IRL specs which pissed off Judd who had already commited to building engines those specs(lawsuit?..or payoff?).CART then depleted the War Chest in an attempt to survive which leads us to where we are now.U.S. OW racing=Deader than ****.Oh yeah,can't forget the cancellation/lawsuit deal resulting from the Fontana wildfires mess.

Thing is...would any of these things(other than the Fontana fires cancellation/lawsuit)have happend without the split? Blame the "boycott" all you want,but it only happened because of the split,NOT the other way round.And using what has happend in the last three years to justify actions taken in 1995 seems rather stupid.
How many of the mistakes would have been made if no split had occurred?

1)Would CARt delay and delay(and eventually disregard)adoption of the 1.8 litre Turbo? I think no.As such,their oval racing probably wouldn't have gone to crap.

2)Would they have gone Public? I personally doubt they would have,but everyone had IPO fever in the 90's so maybe.I'm not sure it would have had a negative effect on the series though.I still don't see what evil the CrackForum types ascribe to that,other than it didn't pay off for the investors('scuse me if I doubt the sincerity of their compassion).

3)Would sponsors have started leaving in droves? Well,there's no way to say that ratings wouldn't have tanked but the trends seem to indicate that the PPG IndyCar Series was doing better than fine in the years with one series.

4)Most of the problems from 2000 would,most likely, simply not have happened without the split.Even the Texas mess wouldn't have happend as the 1.8 litre Turbo cars wouldn't have been as fast as the 2.65 cars.No Cancellation=No Lawsuit...get it?

Now I will say that CART and TG should have solved their problems with each in the early 90,however,CART obviously couldn't placate Tony enough with seats on the board,etc. without losing control of their series.Tony wouldn't accept anything less and decided to form the IRL,which led to the "Lockout/Boycott",which has led us to where U.S. OW racing is today...in the toilet.

And THAT ,my friend,is why it's all TG's fault.

[Buford]

Originally posted by Turn13
Hey, if you can't deny the points, you can't. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

later, 'gators...

If you can refute my slave analogy it is for good reason. Glad you are going back to censoring all debate on your IRL fanboy forum. Bye.

[Buzz]

Originally posted by Buford
His argument is the same as making this one.

If the slaves had just gone along with that good cotton picking job they had, no unemployment, health care on site, food provided, etc, there would never have been that nasty war in 1861 through 1865, and there would be no race relations problems in the USA today.

Slaves didn't bring about the Civil War. The confederacy tried to suceed from the union. Northern states had the early industrialists and railroad owners. The south rebelled against efforts to keep them from industrializing, things like paying double for freight moving north rather than south. Even if you buy the slavery propaganda, you are the first person I've ever seen claim that the slaves brought about the war.

[EVL29]

Wait a minute...I finally get around to pointing out how it's all Tony's fault and Turn13 takes a powder?

[Seat18E]

Originally posted by Buzz


Slaves didn't bring about the Civil War. The confederacy tried to suceed from the union. Northern states had the early industrialists and railroad owners. The south rebelled against efforts to keep them from industrializing, things like paying double for freight moving north rather than south. Even if you buy the slavery propaganda, you are the first person I've ever seen claim that the slaves brought about the war.

Confederacy tries to suceed from the Union - IRL leaves from IndyCar.

Northern States have early industrialization - CART with the best teams/drivers/technology.

South Rebels - Creates own series (enter 25/8 rule) different engine and car specs.

Come on - you don't get this Now you're just arguing to argue.

[Turn13]

Originally posted by EVL29
Wait a minute...I finally get around to pointing out how it's all Tony's fault and Turn13 takes a powder?

EVL, that was a great post, and it deserves a good answer. I will get to it (and Buford's challenge on the analogy) very soon, but I'm busy just at the moment.

See you in a few hours or so, and thanks for the response.

[Buford]

Originally posted by Buzz


Slaves didn't bring about the Civil War. The confederacy tried to suceed from the union. Northern states had the early industrialists and railroad owners. The south rebelled against efforts to keep them from industrializing, things like paying double for freight moving north rather than south. Even if you buy the slavery propaganda, you are the first person I've ever seen claim that the slaves brought about the war.

I am not claiming that at all and CART did not bring on the civil war either. I am saying Turn 13's argument, that all would have been well if they had just become slaves to Tony George makes the same argument as saying African Americans would have been better staying slaves because they had a good job and now they have to suffer all those angonies of having freedom to do as they please and some of them fail.

[Dave Ware]

I've spent over two hours reading this thread. Reminds me of the old Speedvision forums in the late 90s, arguing with the IRL-zealots there. I don't have the time or inclination to get caught up in it again, and besides, as Buford and others have learned here, you can reason with an IRL-zealot until the cows come home and not get anything remotely sensible as a response.

I am one of those who will die of old age before I give a dime to Boy George or any of his associates. This includes his USGP.

Dave

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Turn13
Hey, if you can't deny the points, you can't. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

later, 'gators...

good riddance, ace.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Buzz
Slaves didn't bring about the Civil War. The confederacy tried to suceed from the union. Northern states had the early industrialists and railroad owners. The south rebelled against efforts to keep them from industrializing, things like paying double for freight moving north rather than south. Even if you buy the slavery propaganda, you are the first person I've ever seen claim that the slaves brought about the war.

First, the word is "secede."

Second, I sure hope you don't claim to be a history major.... .... especially one specializing in US history.

Third, good to see that we have identified at least one source of Global Warming -- this and the other CART/IRL threads here and elsewhere....

[Buford]

Come on Don - this is paddy cake. If they would let us really talk without censorship, then you would see some real global warming.

[Buzz]

Originally posted by Don Capps


First, the word is "secede."

Second, I sure hope you don't claim to be a history major.... .... especially one specializing in US history.

Third, good to see that we have identified at least one source of Global Warming -- this and the other CART/IRL threads here and elsewhere....

325+ posts and I had the first typo. Boy is my face red. Did the slaves start the Civil War? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Buford]

Nobody said they did so the point is moot.

[Buzz]

Originally posted by Buford
Nobody said they did so the point is moot.

You said that if the slaves had, "gone along with that good cotton picking job they had, no unemployment, health care on site, food provided, etc, there would never have been that nasty war in 1861 through 1865." Did the slaves stop picking cotton? Did the slaves take any direct action that influenced the southern states to declare their independence?

[Buford]

The point had nothing to do with who started the Civil war.

The point had to do with Turn 13's argument is the very same concept as somebody saying slaves had a lifelong job and no chance of unemployment. Had they stayed slaves (regardless if they freed themselves or were freed through a war not of their initiation), they would have had peace and security and none of them would have ever failed trying to make it on their own as free men. Therefore it was the fault of the slaves for wanting to be free (and those who freed them OK?) for the fact that some of them subsequently failed as free men. The whole bunch of them would have been better off staying slaves.

Turn 13's argument is that kowtowing to Tony George by the very people who previously had saved the sport, would have been all it would have taken to avoid the current disaster befallen the sport. That is the very same argument as saying the slaves should have kept on being slaves to avoid any possibility of failure on their own. And saying any race relations problems we have today would have been avoided if nobody had ever freed the slaves.

That is a stupid, imbecilic argument and nobody but a lunatic would make it. Yet it is the same argument he is making to say all would have been well if CART had not wanted to keep running their own successful series as well as Indy under open competition rules, and instead they had rendered themselves into the bondage of the IRL and the slave master Tony George who had it all figured out but his efforts were sabotaged by those people who refused to be his bitches. That is exactly what he is saying.

[Seat18E]

Originally posted by Don Capps


First, the word is "secede."

Second, I sure hope you don't claim to be a history major.... .... especially one specializing in US history.

Third, good to see that we have identified at least one source of Global Warming -- this and the other CART/IRL threads here and elsewhere....

I agree that the debates do get heated but I think that it is with good reason. And lets not forget that from now until the 28th there will be a whole lot going on that will decide the future. IMO had Fred Nation and the IRL not expressed interest in the remains of CART, there would be little going on at the moment.

I apologize to anyone who may be tired of these topics. The post was meant to discuss the delusional thoughts of some fans which happen to be a derivative of the original article - that is the direction I was hoping that this could go.

[Buford]

Originally posted by Seat18E

I apologize to anyone who may be tired of these topics. The post was meant to discuss the delusional thoughts of some fans which happen to be a derivative of the original article - that is the direction I was hoping that this could go.

The hell with them. They do not have to open any thread about a topic they have no interest in or they are tired of.

[KenC]

Originally posted by Turn13
By Webster's definition.

LOL, you show anyone where in Webster's under the words lockout or boycott, the words IRL or CART show up. You really have a creative imagination.

Originally posted by Turn13
It was possible because a boycott is voluntary. A lockout is not. A team can cross a boycott line. They cannot cross a lockout line. Admitting that CART teams participated, voluntarily, means there could not have been a lockout. We all know that the other teams stayed away by their own decision - a boycott by any definition.

Uhm, let's look at Webster's again. Where in the definition of boycott, is the word "voluntary"? Do you even own a dictionary? And, did you even read my post? I pointed out that you are misapplying the definition. The CART SERIES was effectively locked out; while individual teams were not. Can you understand the distinction between series and team? I'd like you to address the issue of SERIES not team. How does CART, the series, enter Indy, without facing the 25/8 rule?

I'm starting to wonder if you have ever looked up the word boycott!

If the other teams "stayed away by their own decision", has it ever occurred to you WHY? Cause and effect. 25/8 leads to no reason to participate, seeing as only 8 of your 28 or so entries have a chance to make the field. Your blinkers are so thick it's truly remarkable. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Take off the rose-colored glasses. Take the blue pill.

[Buzz]

Originally posted by Buford
The point had nothing to do with who started the Civil war.

The point had to do with Turn 13's argument is the very same concept as somebody saying slaves had a lifelong job and no chance of unemployment. Had they stayed slaves (regardless if they freed themselves or were freed through a war not of their initiation), they would have had peace and security and none of them would have ever failed trying to make it on their own as free men. Therefore it was the fault of the slaves for wanting to be free (and those who freed them OK?) for the fact that some of them subsequently failed as free men. The whole bunch of them would have been better off staying slaves.

Turn 13's argument is that kowtowing to Tony George by the very people who previously had saved the sport, would have been all it would have taken to avoid the current disaster befallen the sport. That is the very same argument as saying the slaves should have kept on being slaves to avoid any possibility of failure on their own. And saying any race relations problems we have today would have been avoided if nobody had ever freed the slaves.

That is a stupid, imbecilic argument and nobody but a lunatic would make it. Yet it is the same argument he is making to say all would have been well if CART had not wanted to keep running their own successful series as well as Indy under open competition rules, and instead they had rendered themselves into the bondage of the IRL and the slave master Tony George who had it all figured out but his efforts were sabotaged by those people who refused to be his bitches. That is exactly what he is saying.

I still find the comparison ridiculous and insulting. George IS an ass. He owned the track that was the focal point of champ car racing, and he decided to see how much leverage that gave him. The competitors are learning that if he didn't have as much leverage as he thought, they weren't capable of making a go of their racing series without his high profile race. Everyone involved is over-privileged, self-absorbed, and not as clever as they think. Comparing the plight of CART owners, who put their short term gains through running pay drivers above the fans' priority of seeing good drivers who they liked, who tolerated their own race officials practice of favoritism, who hired Andy Craig, to that of slaves, who really did face a situation of beyond their control, makes light of the evils of slavery and lacks any meaningful perspective. Is this meant to be hyperbole? There seem to be a number of people who don't know whether they are taking their cues from people who are serious or not these days, not that you are necessarily one of them. At least you didn't use the word fascist.

[Buford]

The concept of slavery applies if someone demands you give up your own successful business and join his under his terms and if you don't, he will use his mother's money to drive you out of business no matter how long it takes, what it costs, and what ultimate damage it does.

Also in 1995 CART had less pay drivers and more paid on retainer drivers on the payroll than at any time since 1975 and far less than the IRL has today or anytime over the past 8 years.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Buzz


I still find the comparison ridiculous and insulting.

Yea, I agree with Buzz. Buford, I support your position and opinions regarding the IRL and the Indy 500 but I would prefer if we let this comparison go without delay. We're talking about auto racing not human rights violations.

[Buford]

If someone demands you give up your own successful business and join his under his terms and if you don't, he will use his mother's money to drive you out of business no matter how long it takes, what it costs, and what ultimate damage it does, what would you you call it?

At the very least it could be restraint of trade. Attempting to create an illegal monoply through monopolistic business practices like once done by the railroads and steel industry. No it is not a human rights violation. I said the argument some idiot might make that people were better off under slavery is the exact same argument as saying all would be well if CART had given up their successful business and followed the leader who was demanding servitude on his terms or he would suffer any damage to his own interests to destroy you. Both arguments are equally illogical and stupid and that is exactly what we are hearing here.

[Manson]

Hey Buford

Remember that car USAC built, hmmmm...early nineties I think called the Sabre? It was designed by Roman Slobodynski and featured a normally aspirated engine. I remember seeing it some time ago but searching through some old "Open Wheel"s, I was unable to find the article. Was TG involved in that project? The car was pretty fugly and never amounted to anything. I believe it was suppose to replace the CART cars at INDY. Any memory of that?

[canon1753]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manson
Hey Buford

Remember that car USAC built, hmmmm...early nineties I think called the Sabre? It was designed by Roman Slobodynski and featured a normally aspirated engine. I remember seeing it some time ago but searching through some old "Open Wheel"s, I was unable to find the article. Was TG involved in that project? The car was pretty fugly and never amounted to anything. I believe it was suppose to replace the CART cars at INDY. Any memory of that? [/]

I think that USAC wanted to use that as a feeder to Indy, not as a replacement for CART at Indy. It never went anywhere, which might have been a pity. That would have been a way for USAC drivers to get rear engined experience on ovals.

[Buford]

Yeah I vaguely do remember that. I don't think that was a TG idea. But it actually was closer to solving the problem he claimed he wanted to solve. Of course we know by now that it was a total fraud that what TG originally said he was doing was what he actually was doing. That of trying to reduce costs so the little guy could afford to get in and to help poor American local heroes who had been unfairly excluded by rich guys and foreigners. It was just a power grab from the beginning. But if that actually had been what he desired there were three ways to go about it.

For one, the IRL replica cars and engines were not anywhere near cheap enough to allow guys in bib overalls to build "motors" out in the barn on tarp draped hay bales. The original crapwagon chassis were only about $100,000 cheaper than the chassis in use. The engines were supposed to be no more than $75,000 with no leases and all parts available in a kit. Even that was way more than even today's 800 HP sprint car engines which I think run about $55,000 and run all season. This car you describe was too expensive too. Something along the lines of current super modifieds would have met the requirements and would have been wildly exciting instead of the yawn inspiring farting "Crapwagons Version One" that so embarrassed the sport, turned off the casual fans in droves, and injured 70 drivers with their tail happy evil handling. He should have just gone with Super modifieds. It still would have involved locking out anybody running current equipment. But it might have caught the fancy of the people he thought he could replace the road racing fans with.

Or if he really cared about promoting talented American drivers, he could have started the IRL, funded it out of his pocket which he had to do anyway, used something like the cars you mention, not tie it into the Indy qualifying 25/8 scam, and given the kids some experience. Maybe some of them would have looked good enough to get hired by the big boys. He had the money and power to do it and everybody would have praised him and given him the recognition that he was not a lightweight he so desperately desired.

Or option three was to go ahead and work with CART on the board, fund 3 or 4 teams, and put whoever he wanted into the cars. Or take over the floundering American Racing Series with full IMS support. TG could easily have negotiated his taking charge of the training series(s) and everybody would have proclaimed him a hero. TG could have made himself a valuable member of the racing community, gotten the experience he needed to be a racing executive, and if it all had worked, and he had taken a Carnegie course on public speaking, maybe he would not today be the most hated man in the history of the sport. By now, had he trained some drivers and made a success of the training leagues that fed the CART series and the Indy 500, he would have been elected fair and square to run CART long before now.

But no, he wanted to intimidate the neighbors, throw out the press, sue hillbillies in Southern Indiana, force $8.00 ice cube bags and crap over priced catering on the racers, and instead of treating his showman as guests, he treated them like the enemy. Tony George made his own enemies with his own attitude from day one. It helped nobody except Racin Gardner who now can tell chicks he raced at the "Indy 500."

[Turn13]

Originally posted by EVL29
Okay,I'll bite.

Point 1)Lower HP,More Downforce and Cost Controls.

CART adopted these measure because they were/are on their deathbed and were looking for a way to survive. How does this apply to 1995? Y'know record ratings, record attendance and record sponsorship and such back then didn't require any of those measures.Did they?

The ratings may have been a record for CART, but not for Indy. Lower HP and more downforce made the oval racing better - something CART had in the early nineties (that everyone liked), and something they returned to at Milwaukee and Germany this year, again to the delight of the fans and the drivers. The point is, this has been a worn-out and trumped-up complaint about the IRL from day one from anti-IRL detractors, but the complaint turns out to be false. Much like most of the complaints repeated over and over in this thread, instead of actual, factual arguments.

In 1995, CART was on the bent that would keep them at street-race friendly specs much to the demise of the oval racing product. Handfords at Indy would have been as much of an abomination as anything else described here, from the technical standpoint. A series dedicated to street race specs at the pain of oval racing was not in the best interests of the Indy 500 or of the ChampCar lineage.

As for cost controls, it was cost controls that brought new opportunities for talent to racing and provoided the dreaded ROI so regrettably but undeniably missing in IndyCar in the nineties. Cost controls are still necessary, no matter what series or endeavor, even, that we are talking about. Every successful series has them, whether they call them that or not. That was another thing that was not obvious but indeed "broken" in 1995. For CART, the issue proved to be intransigent because the people with the power to make the rules were also competitors with each other who were not inclined to risk the competitive advantage of their team for the collective good of the series. As you pointed out, it was only in the death throes that they allowed the Pookster to clamp down.

But yeah, the sponsorship was great - and owed more than CART teams calculated to that long month at Indy. Too bad the Boycott blew it up.

Point 2)Racy Oval Formula

Cart oval racing started to suck when they had to resort gimmicky wings and such to slow the cars on ovals.Of course,this wouldn't have been necessary had they taken their own manufacturers advice and adopted the 1.8 litre Turbo spec back when the Mnfs. proposed it in 97'.They didn't go for it because they were still trying to figure a way to get back to Indy without tossing their entire series down the drain. (That worked well,eh)

They could also have accepted the 2.2 liter compromise that TG brought to the table prior to the Split, but again the individual motives of the teams and the manufacturers in the CART competitor / series manager model made a rational choice practically impossible. Again, the response here is similar to that above. CART was institutionally less motivated to care about ovals, because the money for them was in the owners' promoting their own street races. Not a particularly flattering statement for the series supposedly heir to the ChampCar heritage.

I just find it so ironic that CART almost accidentally fell into a fairly stable oval formula only after ther drastic move of buying detuned spec engines and allowing high-downforce setups again. particularly when, as mentioned, that was a favorite false argument against the IRL. At least, it was until the CART drivers had such compliments and enthusiasm for the IRL's formula.

It does make one wonder about the rest of the arguments hoisted in opposition to the IRL.

Point 3)Subsidizing U.S. talent

I presume your talking about Vasser and Hunter-Reay? Again, in their death throes they tried to do something that would appeal to U.S. fans.They didn't do this before the split because they DIDN'T have to.Or were Lil' Al, Mikey, Jimmy, Herta, Sharp, Lazier and Cheever just figments of my imagination?(we're talking 95' here so maybe they were).

Yes, I was referring to American Spirit Team Johanssen specifically and Pook's and others lipservice in general about the need to attract new and American talent. I don't like the idea of subsidies or quotas in principle, and I don't like them as a means for "Americanizing" a racing grid, but again that was another of the false bashing points of the IRL. I do think the grid in an American racing series ahould probably be attracting the best of U.S. talent, though, which neither series has succeeded at but which the IRL showed the most promise at least with Tony Stewart. Being a U.S.-market focused, Indy-friendly, ovalcentric, and cost-controlled series is all the bias I think is warranted or required to fulfill the critical market requirement that Indy Car racing successfully enjoyed for so many decades. CART took it one step further, of course... a step too far, in my opinion, but a poignant irony for those who are aware.

You see,this is why some fans blame TG for the weakness of OW racing in the States these days.He claimed to start the IRL to rectify problems that didn't exist then but Do exist NOW ,largely as a result of the split.

And I say largly as a result of the Boycott. But, nonetheless, the IRL has been proactively responding to the issues, rather than reacting from the deathbed as you pointed out. The IRL has been more successful because of that proactivity. That it hasn't been resoundingly successful is no surprise, and no indictment of the effort or effectiveness of the method - there are too many other variables and factors in play - the continuing, antagonistic presence of CART in the marketplace included. I think they are the right things to do (and apparently someone at CART made the equation too, once the owner / manager / competitor conflict was desparately put at bay... albeit too late).

You seem to think CART didn't like or repect Indy.Personally,I think its the exact opposite .Thay loved Indy,just didn't like TG....or at least didn't like the idea of pissing away all the success that they had achieved since they told USAC to suck it.

I know that's what they thought. In hindsight, though, they can be seen to have been in error.

I know that many in CART did indeed love Indy, and some still do. Some of them, in fact, have returned... some very notable of them. But not all did: some do in fact hate Indy, and many of both groups were institutionally motivated to act against the interests of Indy as competitors - not on the track, but as business interests competing with Indy. That was an inherent conflict that I think poisoned the relationahsip between the two parties more than any angry insult or catering price-gouge. that was the thing that was most "broken" in 1995. That view doesn't take one side or the other - it just "is".

Indeed, a large part Of CART's demise can be traced to the fact that they seemed to care more about Indy, than their own series. They put off a new engine spec when they had 4 (yes, I said FOUR) mnfs advocating such a move. If they had done that they wouldn't have needed to mess with the Oval specs which dragged CART's oval races down to the IRL's level. If they cared more about CART they wouldn't have tried to negotiate a surrender,"under favorable terms",in 1999 which probably didn't look so good in the eyes of potential sponsors. Why sponsor cars in a series that is trying to negotiate itself out of existence? And don't forget, one of the main reasons for going "public" in the first place was to build a "war chest" to outlast TG.

I agree with almost all of these points, but for the central tenet that the actions were because they "cared too much" for Indy, at least, not in the "romantic" or "sympathetic" or respectful sense. They may have been consumed by it like one is consumed by greed, or like Gollum by The Ring. But someone caring too much in the sense that you seem to imply would be able to do the right thing for everyone's interest.

I also think it is a little too much of the modern notion of responsibility-free living to give CART a pass on every sin as being "Indy's fault"- it's not. I rather think that the same decision-making paralysis and self-interest-serving ploy that did CART in post-Split are much the same qualities that TG didn't like about them pre-Split. That seems to be a much tidier, believable, and likely explanation than getting me to believe that Tim Green and Gerry Forsythe and Chip Ganassi and Bobby Rahal and Pat Patrick and all the rest had identical sympathetic reactions at vote time for Indy that precluded them from responding rationally yet altogether.

In 2000, things just went from bad to worse. Starting with appointing Rahole to the job of CEO and on to the Texas debacle(cancellation/lawsuit) and then on to Spacergate and then to accepting Toyota's demand for adoption of IRL specs,which pissed off Honda so much,they decided to leave CART(and take Team Green/Andretti and Nunn with them).Penske left(and took Marlboro,De Ferran and Helio with him).Toyota left CART despite getting what they wanted(and took Ganassi with them).CART then rescinded the adoption of IRL specs which pissed off Judd who had already commited to building engines those specs(lawsuit?..or payoff?).CART then depleted the War Chest in an attempt to survive which leads us to where we are now.U.S. OW racing=Deader than ****.Oh yeah,can't forget the cancellation/lawsuit deal resulting from the Fontana wildfires mess.

Thing is...would any of these things(other than the Fontana fires cancellation/lawsuit)have happened without the split? Blame the "boycott" all you want,but it only happened because of the split,NOT the other way round.And using what has happend in the last three years to justify actions taken in 1995 seems rather stupid.
How many of the mistakes would have been made if no split had occurred? ...

I will say, most of them, that can be conceived as being possible. That is what I am saying - I think CART was predisposed by the very nature of their competitor / owner / management foundation to make these kinds of bad choices, Indy or no.

Now I will say that CART and TG should have solved their problems with each in the early 90, however,CART obviously couldn't placate Tony enough with seats on the board,etc. without losing control of their series. Tony wouldn't accept anything less and decided to form the IRL, which led to the "Lockout/Boycott", which has led us to where U.S. OW racing is today...in the toilet.

I agree with a lot of that, except again I can't excuse the behavior and actions of so many supposedly smart, competitive men and blame just one other guy for all their own bad votes, self-serving deals, and inability to work apart from Tony George's interaction. It's just too fantastic that he could control them all, when not all of them obviously even care for Indy in the same way.

Besides, TG is doing the right things. He'd have done even better with their support. Had they all got along, they'd all be doing the right things, and the genre would be saved.

All the things in my list above are all undeniably factual. C'mon, you don't think I'd have picked items that plainly weren't, do ya?;) Besides, I only picked the ones that current CART fans and former CART participants have already admitted, anyway. Collectively, they tell a tale that says Tony had a point... a pretty good one, too.

And THAT ,my friends, is why it's NOT all TG's fault.

Thanks, EVL, for probably the fairest debate you've given me, here or at 7G.

[Pete Aaron]

T13, whatever you post or whatever your opinion, you are not going to change the brutal fact that the i500 is a shadow of what it was.
The fans have spoken, with their wallets and their feet and worst of all in the sporting world, their veiwership.
You cannot possibly dispute that.
Why did the fans vote that way?
Simple, Tony George and the irl were an answer to a question that was never asked.
Since the day that TG took over, it has been in decline and has never equalled what it was in 1995.
Never will again either.
For me the saddest thing of all of this is that when I ask young racers, and I am currently painting a 1/4 midget, one of many in fact, the answer I get on what their dreams are, is that they want to win Daytona. The midget/sprint crowd at the bottom rungs has given up on indy, and when I do bring it up, the 8-12 year old crowd doesn't even know who won the last one, or even watched it for that matter.
It's a NASCAR nation now and I wouldn't be surprised to see the greatest OW race in America less than a deacade ago become a NASCAR race in the next decade.
Now, go back and preach to the brownshirt forum you run, the only public forum where the only opinions respected and allowed to be posted are those that agree with yours.
You are tilting at windmills here in the real world of motorsports enthusiasts.
See ya

[Buford]

Thanks, EVL, for probably the fairest debate you've given me, here or at 7G.

What's unfair about MY debate? Just because it came from somebody who was on the scene for 40 years and knows where we came from, where we were and what got us to where we are now? Someone who was friends with the Hulman family? Someone who used to race with USAC and is one of only 250 life members? A genuine oval track heritage Midwest hayseed? Kind of hurts when one of your own turns on you, doesn't it?

[ensign14]

OK, so the CARTisans are mostly in the IRL now and pretty much dominating it.

In a couple of years the likes of Kanaan and Wheldon and Dixon and Scheckter et al will have name recognition. The casual fan may at least know vaguely who they are and look for their favourite at the Indy 500.

So the CARTisans in 2006 decide to stop racing in the IRL, go back to CART, but keep their year-old cars to race at Indy alone...what happens then? At Indy you have Penske/Penske/Ganassi/Andretti/Ganassi/Andretti, then at Nazareth you have...umm...Robbie Buhl just beating AJ 4oyt into 2nd and last place?

[Henri Greuter]

ensign14 wrote:

OK, so the CARTisans are mostly in the IRL now and pretty much dominating it.
So the CARTisans in 2006 decide to stop racing in the IRL, go back to CART, but keep their year-old cars to race at Indy alone...what happens then? At Indy you have Penske/Penske/Ganassi/Andretti/Ganassi/Andretti, then at Nazareth you have...umm...Robbie Buhl just beating AJ 4oyt into 2nd and last place?

====

Sounds like you put the 2002 Indy500 and IRL series in a nutshell.
Remember at Indy2002: top5: CART, 6th Nascar, 7th First IRL regular...


Henri Greuter