91 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

So what must be done that IndyCar get stronger:

1) The races must be in free tv in the important countries, not just in America, but also in Western Europe for example.

2) They also had to race in other countries like Mexico, Europe and so on. But perhaps with a budget cap.

3) IndyCar needs more big names from NASCAR and Formula One. Names like Jimmy Johnson, Tony Stewart, Kurt Busch, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton and guys with such names.

4) There must be a strong feeder series (like GP2 America)

5) Perhaps we need more competitive cars, stronger, more powerful and so on.

6) IndyCar needs race events shared with NASCAR or USSC, perhaps also F1 (Austin, Montréal).

7) Spare parts must be not that expensive like now.

8) We need more chassis and engine builders, combined with budget cap.

[Muppetmad]

I personally think IndyCar is strong as it is currently - there's wonderful racing up and down the highly talented grid. Truly, it has been a joy to watch these past few years. Some more international races would be nice (or more races in general - the calendar is a touch sparse), and easier access to watch the races worldwide would be much appreciated, but otherwise if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Amphicar]

IndyCar is certainly stronger now than it has been for many years - probably since the CART/IRL split. However, I don't see it ever getting back to the heady days of the '60s and '70s when the Indy 500 was (for drivers) the most important race in the world and the USAC Championship was the premier race series in the USA. NASCAR has long since eclipsed IndyCar as the main series in US car racing and it is difficult to see how that is going to change. It might help if at least some of the chassis and engines were built in America by American companies. As it is, the chassis are built in the USA but by an Italian company, the Honda engine is also US-built but by a Japanese company  - and the Chevy engine is built in Northamptonshire. A far cry from the days of the All-American Racing Eagles powered by quad-cam Ford V8s or turbo-charged Offys. All proudly born in the USA.

[Disgrace]

The grid is strong, the cars look fresh and futuristic and the racing has been more enjoyable than what F1 has produced for two seasons now. For a series that has faced significant trouble in recent times, I think their experimental approach is the right one. Regarding power, I believe they are cranking it up in time for the 100th Indy 500 (though not sure what effect that might have on safety). Indy Lights will also finally be getting a contemporary chassis next year, so that's also on the right track.

 

The problem lies with the coverage and the pathetic viewing figures.

[Diablobb81]

Build up what they have and for my taste have more international races and coverage. I think in the last years the series has continually improved and is a pleasure to watch.

[x600]

They are on the right path. It's real racing compared to fake F1. It should pay off in the near future.

[TheManAlive]

They need to get it on TV. Failing that then they should have a proper online stream available for low cost to get people watching - this would help with sponsors and increase the fanbase.

 

I used to watch most races but in the last few years getting access to decent live coverage has been near impossible.

 

The best years were the early to mid 90s. It was a genuine threat to F1 but managed to shoot itself in the foot with the CART/IRL split. Such a shame.

[InSearchOfThe]

Let's start with your #3 question- If you want to make money in racing you want to drive in either Nascar or F1.So there's that.

#4- there's already a feeder system, Indy Lights, but all the best drivers from Europe or the U.S. either want to drive in F1or Nascar.

#5-They just upgraded the cars 2 years ago. Plus it's a spec series so it's as competitive as it's going to get.

#6-Nascar WILL NEVER,EVER SHARE A DATE WITH INDYCAR. they're in direct competion with each other and Nascar rules the roost.

I'd say all of your other questions deal in the money issue. Indy isn't Nascar or F1, by design.There's a reason they're different because of the money factor. It's sad, but true. Indy is an alteriative to the 2 juggernauts of the world. Just enjoy it as it is.A redheaded stepsister of the racing world.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's really basic, and it's basic business. Get the costs below the market value of a year-long sponsorship.

[Risil]

The problem lies with the coverage and the pathetic viewing figures.

 

TV coverage (on NBC, anyway) is excellent. Like the ontological proof, it's easy to see that Indycar has gone wrong but very hard to diagnose exactly what's wrong with it. Obviously it needs new sponsors but so does F1, even more so. Crowds seem to be improving but it makes no difference on TV figures.

[Prost1997T]

Let's start with your #3 question- If you want to make money in racing you want to drive in either Nascar or F1.

 

I guess Sam Bird, Jack Harvey, Jack Hawksworth, Alexandre Baron and others are morons for crossing the Atlantic to pursue an Indycar career then? What mega salaries do the likes of Nico Hulkenberg make in F1?

[Ross Stonefeld]

He was listing Tier 1 NASCAR and F1 drivers, your listing guys(with the exception of Hulkenberg) who didn't have an F1 chance. 

 

Indycar, and more and more F1 these days, is beating your head against the wall. It's the path of most resistance.

[Prost1997T]

He was listing Tier 1 NASCAR and F1 drivers, your listing guys(with the exception of Hulkenberg) who didn't have an F1 chance.

 

No, it was a general comment. Unless you have a massive budget or get picked up by RBR early, you're not likely to get into F1 no matter the skill\talent level.

 

Nascar seems to be much better at getting talented drivers to its top level, I'll agree there.

[Ali_G]

IndyCar is certainly stronger now than it has been for many years - probably since the CART/IRL split.

 

Still not as strong as CART was right up until about 2001 or 2002 IMO. 

[InSearchOfThe]

This is only a guess, but if you average the top 10 drivers salaries in each series against each, then the same for the bottom 10 it's not even in the same universe.

 

As for the drivers you mentioned Bird, Harvey, Hawksworth etc, they all might be talented, but will never get a sniff at an F1 seat.And that's fine. Come over here, make a name for yourself , then maybe get some play back in Europe.

 

Hulk sounds like the exception in a lotta ways.Living on talent and timing alone. His time to get payed will come. Maybe sooner rather than later if ALO/RAI duo don't get it done soon.

[917k]

For those that think IndyCar is ''strong'' and ''on the right track'', I don't think you could be more wrong. As a long-time and very dedicated fan, it pains me to say it, but a series that just dropped three venues [or were dropped by, as they don't make money], lost its' title sponsor and are locked into a long term TV deal that guarantee's tiny ratings for years and years, the future is far from bright. Even the Indy 500 isn't immune, with near record low TV figures again, following a long-term decline that shows no sign of abating.

 

TV viewing figures have reached historic lows, sponsorship is nearly impossible to sell at those levels, most of the teams are just barely scrapping by, using series handout money to keep going. Venues, especially street races seem to last a few years at best then disappear and real race tracks have no desire in paying IndyCar any sort of sanction fee, especially with the dire crowd sizes and TV figures.

 

Indycar has just released a schedule that would have made the old IRL proud and the management has declared 2014 another rebuilding year - that's like the 10th in a row, but nothing gets rebuilt.

 

Don't mistake exciting racing with popularity or health, as Indycar has neither at the moment. I could see the Hulman family quickly tiring of paying the freight to keep the teams and series afloat, so things like subsidies will disappear and there is no substitute sponsorship to make that up. There is no way the series can continue as is and I think big changes are in the future - either a new ownership group or a wholesale restructuring. 

 

Where is the ''right direction'' and ''strength'' here? Yes, the races are good, there is a good crop of drivers but recognition is zero. Last years series champion, an American too [RHR], remains a complete and total nobody as does the rest of the grid. The most recognizable name, Franchitti, is gone - replaced in name power by JPM, but most Americans will just see him as a NASCAR wash-out.

 

IndyCar has become the ultimate spec. series, with a tiny fanbase and less sponsorship. It is currently way too expensive for what it offers in return and needs a complete make-over to make itself financially viable again.

[syolase]

Less ads. I know its murica' but come on, more than half of the race is ads ads ads ads.

[billm99uk]

Well if nothing else, current Indycar proves all those commenters who say "All you need is great racing and the viewership (and sponsors) will come" are just plain wrong. Real life doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.

[jonpollak]

How to get IndyCar strong again?

How about a time machine that takes us back to 1982.

1.21 Jiggawatts.

Jp

PS Mary Chrismaas

Edited by jonpollak, 25 December 2013 - 20:23.

[PayasYouRace]

So what must be done that IndyCar get stronger:

1) The races must be in free tv in the important countries, not just in America, but also in Western Europe for example.

 

That would be great, but who would pay for it? Would half the race be missed with advert breaks? I don't see the BBC picking it up, for example. Easier said than done.

 

2) They also had to race in other countries like Mexico, Europe and so on. But perhaps with a budget cap.

 

Again something I'd like to see, but if nobody is willing to pay for it then it's not going to happen. I've been saying for years that Indycar needs to race at Rockingham, given the strong British contingent in the field and it's the reason the oval was built.

 

3) IndyCar needs more big names from NASCAR and Formula One. Names like Jimmy Johnson, Tony Stewart, Kurt Busch, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton and guys with such names.

 

I agree that luring away big names from other series would be great, but even at it's height CART only managed to attract a single reigning WDC. More would have to be done first I think.

 

4) There must be a strong feeder series (like GP2 America)

 

How would you make Indy Lights stronger?

 

5) Perhaps we need more competitive cars, stronger, more powerful and so on.

 

The cars are currently very competitive and are getting more powerful and faster at the moment. It's one of the things Indycar seems to be getting right at the moment.

 

6) IndyCar needs race events shared with NASCAR or USSC, perhaps also F1 (Austin, Montréal).

 

Not at all. I don't see how being second billing at an event would help the series at all.

 

7) Spare parts must be not that expensive like now.

 

That would probably be solved by allowing another chassis builder and removing the monopoly. That would probably reduce the competitiveness a bit though.

 

8) We need more chassis and engine builders, combined with budget cap.

 

Not necessarily. Indycar's golden CART era managed with only a handful of chassis and engine makers at a time.

[Disgrace]

For those that think IndyCar is ''strong'' and ''on the right track'', I don't think you could be more wrong. As a long-time and very dedicated fan, it pains me to say it, but a series that just dropped three venues [or were dropped by, as they don't make money], lost its' title sponsor and are locked into a long term TV deal that guarantee's tiny ratings for years and years, the future is far from bright. Even the Indy 500 isn't immune, with near record low TV figures again, following a long-term decline that shows no sign of abating.

 

TV viewing figures have reached historic lows, sponsorship is nearly impossible to sell at those levels, most of the teams are just barely scrapping by, using series handout money to keep going. Venues, especially street races seem to last a few years at best then disappear and real race tracks have no desire in paying IndyCar any sort of sanction fee, especially with the dire crowd sizes and TV figures.

 

Indycar has just released a schedule that would have made the old IRL proud and the management has declared 2014 another rebuilding year - that's like the 10th in a row, but nothing gets rebuilt.

 

Don't mistake exciting racing with popularity or health, as Indycar has neither at the moment. I could see the Hulman family quickly tiring of paying the freight to keep the teams and series afloat, so things like subsidies will disappear and there is no substitute sponsorship to make that up. There is no way the series can continue as is and I think big changes are in the future - either a new ownership group or a wholesale restructuring. 

 

Where is the ''right direction'' and ''strength'' here? Yes, the races are good, there is a good crop of drivers but recognition is zero. Last years series champion, an American too [RHR], remains a complete and total nobody as does the rest of the grid. The most recognizable name, Franchitti, is gone - replaced in name power by JPM, but most Americans will just see him as a NASCAR wash-out.

 

IndyCar has become the ultimate spec. series, with a tiny fanbase and less sponsorship. It is currently way too expensive for what it offers in return and needs a complete make-over to make itself financially viable again.

 

Perhaps the distinction between the racing and problems the series faces (which you go into far more detail than I did) in my post was not clear enough. Though you haven't quoted me, you have taken some buzzwords in my post out of context.

Edited by Disgrace, 26 December 2013 - 00:26.

[Shambolic]

As a UK viewer, I'd like some actually accesible free to view TV coverage, instead of it being on some obsdcure pay channel, or found through streams.

 

Other than that, I'm waiting for the team developed aero packages to come in, as I like my racing to have some difference between cars other than engine make.

 

Overall though, I've got more and more interested in Indycar the last couple of years, and it's definitely not bad. Not a fan of ovals, but they're unavoidable I guess.

[William Hunt]

 

What mega salaries do the likes of Nico Hulkenberg make in F1?

 

2.8 million $ (could be Euro) is Hülkenburg's salary for 2014 at Force India.

That's an excellent salary for driving in a midfield team.

[loki]

2.8 million $ (could be Euro) is Hülkenburg's salary for 2014 at Force India.
That's an excellent salary for driving in a midfield team.

In Cup an also ran caliber of driver with a strong fan base can make that on merchandise alone. Given the amount of money in F1 as a whole it's not that much comparatively speaking though I bet VJ and Roy think it's plenty.

[911]

Still not as strong as CART was right up until about 2001 or 2002 IMO. 

 

I agree because CART in the mid to late 90s was fantastic.  

 

However, I am happy to see that it "is" making a strong comeback and I am enjoying the series, again.  I'm glad to see JPM back in it next year, as well.

[GSiebert]

I stopped watching because the cars are bloody ugly. 

[nosecone]

I stopped watching because the cars are bloody ugly. 

 

 Do you watch Formula 1? (I know you guys don't like to hear the word F1 in a Indycar thread. It's like comparing football with basketball just because both sports use balls)

 

The cars aren't bloody ugly. They've got low noses that don't remind one of a ******. the sidepods look a bit fat but still nice to watch.

 

The cars may not be 'beauties' but the races are quite good. For example Sao Paulo, the Hinch v Sato fight was one of the best i ever saw. Heroic. That battle compensates every ugliness of the cars.

[John Player]

Go back to Road America and Laguna Seca.

[Ali_G]

IMO, the DP01 was the correct chassis to go with when the 2 series remerged.  The Indycar chassis is awful looking.  The new one is even worse than the old one.

 

The old Lola chassis looked like a proper race car.

 

Edited by Ali_G, 26 December 2013 - 17:17.

[Afterburner]

The only thing I'd change is the look of the cars. Everything is just fine; it's very possible that it will eclipse F1 next year as my favourite form of open-wheel motorsport. While both are gimmicky at times, IndyCar doesn't pretend to be something it isn't--much like its fans, oddly enough.

[billm99uk]

The problem is it is financially unsustainable in the long run as it is. Not enough people watching.

[Fulcrum]

IMO, the DP01 was the correct chassis to go with when the 2 series remerged.  The Indycar chassis is awful looking.  The new one is even worse than the old one.

 

The old Lola chassis looked like a proper race car.

 

 

No. The Panoz "backbreaker" build for run only on road and streets circuits. It was ugly and unsafe car.
 

The biggest fault was when they choose the Dallara to build the new car. All concept looked better than the final car.

 

 

Edited by Fulcrum, 26 December 2013 - 18:13.

[Ross Stonefeld]

For all we know those cars would have raced like ****.

[Risil]

I'm pretty convinced that the only car that could've changed Indycar's profile with the media and public would've been the Delta Wing. And even then probably only if it was all-electric.

Edited by Risil, 26 December 2013 - 18:41.

[SenorSjon]

The current car looks like a bumper car and there is hardly any development allowed. Just like F1 is offputting these days with ugly cars as well and 'boxed-in' rulemaking. Most Europeans hardly watch Nascar, so hardly a comparison.

 

I do miss TV coverage though. It is very hard to follow on TV. Dutch RTL did some races a few years back, but that were often reruns from 1-3 weeks old. Live or not please.

They should hammer out a deal with Eurosport to start broadcasting races again.

[GSiebert]

 Do you watch Formula 1?

 

A lot less since 2009 ...

[Ali_G]

No. The Panoz "backbreaker" build for run only on road and streets circuits. It was ugly and unsafe car.
 

The biggest fault was when they choose the Dallara to build the new car. All concept looked better than the final car.

 

 

 

All of those cars look truly terrible in my eyes.  These designs along with the one that was chosen, look like they were designed by an artist for a movie.  They don't look like racing cars in my eyes.  They look like an artists interpretation of one.

 

Producing something that looks like an old Champcar would be a big positive in my mind. 

[maximilian]

The Swift 70 would have been the way to go!

[Ross Stonefeld]

 

Producing something that looks like an old Champcar would be a big positive in my mind. 

 

It'd do next to nothing to the health of the series. As always these discussions turn into fantasy schedule/fantasy car debates rather than anything relevant.

[Option1]

I have to laugh at those still carrying on about the look of the cars.  I was one of those who didn't like the look of the current car when it was announced, but i happily accept it because it has produced some great racing.  This focus on "the car must look like how I envisage a racing car looking" is kind of childish.

 

Neil

[P123]

The cars look fine as they are, a bit different from the norm (of course the '90 to early '00s cars looked great... difficult to match or surpass them for aesthetics), and they provide great racing.  I don't think the present design of them is too much of an issue.  GP2, as an example, has managed to create cars that look like mini F1 HRT's, but provide for terrible racing in comparison to the original chassis.  A case of looks over substance.

[Ali_G]

It'd do next to nothing to the health of the series. As always these discussions turn into fantasy schedule/fantasy car debates rather than anything relevant.

 

Tell me, what exactly should be done so to improve the series ?  Get Lockheed Martin on board to create an aero kit ?

[Ali_G]

I have to laugh at those still carrying on about the look of the cars.  I was one of those who didn't like the look of the current car when it was announced, but i happily accept it because it has produced some great racing.  This focus on "the car must look like how I envisage a racing car looking" is kind of childish.

 

Neil

 

Cars that produce good racing aren't the be all and end all of a racing series when it comes to popularity.  BTCC and WTCC's car both produce fantastic racing but either series aren't near as popular as they used to be.

 

F1 racing is about as artificial as it has every been and yet total viewership is prob at an all time high. 

[Option1]

Cars that produce good racing aren't the be all and end all of a racing series when it comes to popularity.  BTCC and WTCC's car both produce fantastic racing but either series aren't near as popular as they used to be.

 

F1 racing is about as artificial as it has every been and yet total viewership is prob at an all time high. 

And yet F1 cars are as ugly as they've ever been...

 

Neil

[Ali_G]

And yet F1 cars are as ugly as they've ever been...

 

Neil

 

The 2006 to 2008 cars were much worse IMO.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Tell me, what exactly should be done so to improve the series ?  Get Lockheed Martin on board to create an aero kit ?

 

Again, why are you worrying about bodykits? We could bring back the cars of the late 90s/early 00s and have the same problems as now. In fact they had a lot of those problems then.

 

They need to completely do the financial model of Indycar. Though that will probably require starting over on chassis and engine rules and going to something more simple. The engines need to be whatever gets the manufacturers interested. More than just two. 

[HaydenFan]

So what must be done that IndyCar get stronger:

1) The races must be in free tv in the important countries, not just in America, but also in Western Europe for example.

2) They also had to race in other countries like Mexico, Europe and so on. But perhaps with a budget cap.

3) IndyCar needs more big names from NASCAR and Formula One. Names like Jimmy Johnson, Tony Stewart, Kurt Busch, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton and guys with such names.

4) There must be a strong feeder series (like GP2 America)

5) Perhaps we need more competitive cars, stronger, more powerful and so on.

6) IndyCar needs race events shared with NASCAR or USSC, perhaps also F1 (Austin, Montréal).

7) Spare parts must be not that expensive like now.

8) We need more chassis and engine builders, combined with budget cap.

 

Let's answer this. I have missed a few days and need to catch up. Might repeat what has been said as many here are on the same page as I. 

 

1.) Who's paying for it? If it is demanded, it will be free. Not like IndyCar saw any drop in ratings when it switched to a NBC Sports Network. Hell, most people who have a television have cable/satellite. And the likes of me who don't, we go to the bar and get a pretty lady working there to change the channel. Not difficult, just requires a bit of courage to talk to the bartender beyond ordering your beer/whisky-coke.

 

2.) We all want that. IndyCar wants it. But even in a countries well represented like Canada or Brazil (in IndyCar, races should be a big part of the schedule, but in 2014, you have 1 weekend, 2 races (11.1%) of the schedule occurring in those countries. It's not a lack of appeal from the fans. But a lack of appeal to the rich fans. Those who have companies who can foot a bill to run a race. The budget cap must refer to travel costs. Those were covered by the race's promoters. A big cost, which isn't appealing to many sponsors. 

 

This lack of rounds outside the United States goes back to 2008 and Surfers Paradise. They were offered to continue in 2009 and beyond, but the people in charge left some people with a bad taste in their mouth asking for money when the deal was already sweet enough.

 

3.) Why not make the names they have already bigger? This year is going to be the J.P. Montoya series. And his success or failures will impact the series. Both for the negative. If he dominates and wins the title, the series will be looked at as being weak. And if he is trounced, then his lack of success will turn some people away. 

 

Having a big name from another series adds responsibility to a series which isn't responsible enough to wipe his shoes off at the door. Everywhere they go, they seem to leave footprints of filth. They make a mess and don't clean it up when they leave. 

 

4.) The Mazda Road to Indy is the most complete and most straight ladder to any series in the world. Starts from Skip Barber F1600 style cars to F2000 cars to a Formula Renault/F3 type car, then then GP2/Lights cars. Problem with the 3 of the rungs is that the cars are over a decade old. The Barber car has to be pushing 2 decades now. The Pro Mazda car and the Indy Lights car are the same age. And the top 3 series (USF2000/Pro Mazda/Indy Lights) are all run by the same promoter, so that adds stability and consistency among the series. That is a benefit even the Euro-F1 ladder does not have. The ladder is fine; just that it costs a lot. While comparable, and even less than it's Euro counterpart, it is still expensive when comparing to the other series in the country sprint cars(USAC/World of Outlaw Sprint Cars/midgets/Silver Crown) and stock cars (NASCAR/ARCA). Why do many kids go to NASCAR? It is cheaper in terms of climbing the ladder, and there is an bigger chance of getting paid to drive. 

 

5.) How more competitive do you want? Sheesh, I am recently diagnosed with ADD and even I don't get bored with an IndyCar race. We saw super competitive racing at Las Vegas in 2011. Was like Daytona or Talladega. It did not work. Dan Wheldon's fatal incident aside, it was exciting. But if that is what you and others want, then you should assess the type of sports you follow. Maybe autoracing is not for you. Type hockey, or MMA. 

 

6.) Why? Why share events? It will never be equally divided, and if you want your series to be a major series in the world, then you should not stick yourself with the competitors. A round at Austin or Montreal is a thing IndyCar should strive towards, but not as the undercard to the Grand Prix. 

 

7.) And that is what Dallara and IndyCar are working towards. I think the Honda/Chevrolet packages will make things even more expensive. Not a major problem though. 

 

8.) We saw with the Lotus/Judd engine though, that in the place of engines, unless a major manufacturer steps up and spends tens of millions to develop a motor, we will see nothing change. I think two engine builders is fine. NASCAR for much of the 90's was a Chevrolet/Ford battle. It was exciting. Many engine/chassis builders is fun and all, but capitalism rules and whoever builds the best product is going to see the major buy it. Why did the Lola win over the Reynard in Champ Car's final years? Okay, Reynard went under, but Lola built the better car. The teams that ran the Reynard did so mostly due to financial reasons. The Panoz/G-Force wasn't outlaws until 2008 in IndyCar. Yet it was pretty quickly tossed to the wayside as it was a crap car. Heck, the fuel change to ethanol made the Panoz irrelevant as they chose not to change their car. 

 

 

What is really needed? It needs positivity. Having people write articles every off-season asking, "What can IndyCar do to improve?" doesn't help. IndyCar is still the teenage girl. Will always be. It is finicky. It doesn't know what it wants. Changes are scary and they will stick with the idiot boyfriend (Dallara IR-03) because it is consistency. 

[Lemnpiper]

 

 

 

4.) The Mazda Road to Indy is the most complete and most straight ladder to any series in the world. Starts from Skip Barber F1600 style cars to F2000 cars to a Formula Renault/F3 type car, then then GP2/Lights cars. Problem with the 3 of the rungs is that the cars are over a decade old. The Barber car has to be pushing 2 decades now. The Pro Mazda car and the Indy Lights car are the same age. And the top 3 series (USF2000/Pro Mazda/Indy Lights) are all run by the same promoter, so that adds stability and consistency among the series. That is a benefit even the Euro-F1 ladder does not have. The ladder is fine; just that it costs a lot. While comparable, and even less than it's Euro counterpart, it is still expensive when comparing to the other series in the country sprint cars(USAC/World of Outlaw Sprint Cars/midgets/Silver Crown) and stock cars (NASCAR/ARCA). Why do many kids go to NASCAR? It is cheaper in terms of climbing the ladder, and there is an bigger chance of getting paid to drive. 

 

 

  BINGO!!! 

 

  This is the key ,  of all the major series in the USA only Indycar is rear engine  , and the attention the drivers get in rear engine lower level series is horrid.  There's next to no national press on those series compared to the lower level front engines series  to the  point you could be a best young driver in the usa, but if you race in a rear engine based lower level series no one will know who you are. This means   potential sponsors are also clueless about you, and with  the puny purses you race for  , unless find a well healed sponsor , getting to the INDY 500 is just gonna be an unfilled dream.

 

 

   It may sound radical  but  it may be time for indycar to start seriously looking at potential FRONT ENGINED   concepts  that can hopefully attact those young drivers that now see NASCAR  as the most viable path for their career.

 

  While I believe many innovations came about with the rear engine revolution in Indy car  , what many forget is the drivers of that era in many cases raced sprints  nascar at the same time. Which  helped them bring even more attention to  Indy car since so many were willing to drive non Indycar  vehicles. And that link has been lost in the last 20-25 years when the last drivers of that era finally aged out of the cockpit. And the decline in the visability of the series and it's drivers can be traced to that event. Too many  Americans   Indycars are as foreign to them as a Formula1 car .

 

  Now if Indycar wants to keep goin  with the rear engine concept   I will predict it might hang on at the level it is , but the days of old in regards to the esteem the series had  will never return.  And for all we  know the rear engines path ended up being the path to oblivion,

 

 

 

 

   Paul

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

[Nova]

The current car looks like a bumper car and there is hardly any development allowed. Just like F1 is offputting these days with ugly cars as well and 'boxed-in' rulemaking. Most Europeans hardly watch Nascar, so hardly a comparison.

 

I do miss TV coverage though. It is very hard to follow on TV. Dutch RTL did some races a few years back, but that were often reruns from 1-3 weeks old. Live or not please.

They should hammer out a deal with Eurosport to start broadcasting races again.

 

That's what threw me of both F1 and US racing. With no development, and my interest being with Honda rather than drivers, there simply is no excitment left. I'm not going to watch neither Indy Car nor F1, even with Honda present, as long as there is virtually no development on engines in long periods.
 

[Roscoe]

The main thing that put me off is the tracks.  I'm not a fan of ovals and the majority of non ovals are these short, awful street circuits.  They need to race on proper race tracks.