219 replies to this topic

[Flat Black 84]

Those who are well acquainted with Indianapolis Motor Speedway often describe it as a place where tradition reigns supreme. A site where history lives in the form of the wraiths of racers past who encircle and envelop the venerable race course.

But you don't have to attend the Indy 500 to get a strong taste of this tradition and history. Watching the race on television will suffice. Listen to the traditional songs, including "Back Home in Indiana," that are ritually sung before the big event. Listen as Mari Hulman George intones, "Ladies and gentlemen start your engines!" Watch as the winning driver, bedecked in a victory wreath, downs a cold bottle of milk. See the famous Borg-Warner trophy that is fitted for the likeness of the latest winner.

And those are only the most famous, recognizable traditions of the Indy 500. For every one of those there are countless other lesser rituals and rites known to the cognoscenti who attend the race year after year the way their parents and grandparents attended the race.

For the length of the great race's history, this tradition and reliance upon a brilliant and starry past have constituted the strength of the Indianapolis 500. They sustained the event by binding it in an unfrayed sinew to the very earliest days of motor sport in America. These traditions resonated within a unified American culture and drew Americans to the speedway's bosom during Memorial Day weekend, a time of heightened patriotism and national self-awareness. Because of its traditions and its glorious past, the Indianapolis 500 was at the very heart of American culture much the way the Super Bowl is today.

But something bordering on tragic has happen to the Indy 500. Year after year television ratings have diminished. The race's centrality to American popular culture has vanished. And with the 2009 race comes word that the Indianapolis 500 garnered the smallest market share of viewers in its history. A lengthy trend has culminated in an abyss, a popularity void that used to be a frenzied den of fascination, hubbub and commentary. No more.

What has caused the Indianapolis 500's popularity to decline so precipitously? Theories abound. Some observers point to the proliferation of entertainment options that have fractured the 500's former stranglehold on viewer attention during the Memorial Day weekend. Others have pointed to Tony George's creation of a schism in Indy car racing in 1995, which scattered the stars of the sport and fatally distracted the public from the Indy 500. Once distracted, those fans have yet to return to the fold.

There is doubtless a good deal of truth to those explanations, but I would here like to propose a third explanation, a cultural explanation. As noted above, the Indy 500 has always been a traditional event and when America was a nation that revered history and tradition, this traditional bent was the vigorous life blood of the race. But America has changed. No longer is it a nation that honors tradition and revels in its own past. On the contrary, the nation's public schools, its entertainment industry and its media now neglect tradiation when they do not disdain it. These entities regard tradition as the cultural residue of an oppressive past, the irrational effluvia of a sorrier bygone age. The evidence for this alteration in the nation's zeitgeist is to be seen in the most recent presidential election where not one but both candidates fought over who was the strongest agent for "change."

Continuity with the past? Tradition? An American essence? Scarcely a word was heard about such things.

And now, I would argue, the Indianapolis 500 is a cultural anachronism. It speaks endlessly about its traditions and its history to a younger audience that has no use for history and is tone-deaf to tradition. Bottles of milk? Quaint old songs that mean nothing to them? Ray Harroun? Wilbur Shaw? Bull Vukovich? Heck, even A. J. Foyt? To the modern American these artifacts simply do not register.

And so, as the older generations slowly disappear so does the core fan base that gloried in the Indianapolis 500. The younger generations, oblivious to history and cynical about tradition, ignore the grand event that meant so much to their ancestors. And the Indianapolis 500 is dying a slow death that, short of a cultural instauration, cannot be arrested.

Edited by Flat Black 84, 29 May 2009 - 22:18.

[ensign14]

Tradition is still pretty important. Look at the fuss over moving the Southern 500 (which seems to have hit NASCAR a great deal). Babe Ruth, the Cubs curse, throwback uniforms, Neil Diamond, whatever. There's still a huge amount of nostalgia. If modern Americans don't know about the milk, that's because they don't know about the 500 per se. And we get back to the argument that Tony George killed it by replacing the Andrettis and Unsers and F1 world champions past and present with dentists and Scott "DUI" Harrington and Racin Gardner.

[RA Historian]

What has to cause the Indianapolis 500's popularity to decline so precipitously?

You could ask Buford.....
Tom

[Flat Black 84]

Tradition is still pretty important. Look at the fuss over moving the Southern 500 (which seems to have hit NASCAR a great deal). Babe Ruth, the Cubs curse, throwback uniforms, Neil Diamond, whatever. There's still a huge amount of nostalgia.

I would argue that the vast majority of that nostalgia resides with older generations that are dwindling with every passing day. If the Indy 500 is to survive and thrive it cannot rely on that demographic much longer.

[TrackDog]

The racing is homogenized...some would say emasculated. The cars are all the same. The thrill is, if not gone, maybe diminished by the fact that nobody is likely to be seriously injured or killed in an accident. It used to be that death was a real possibility...on a day when we remembered fallen heroes, it was entirely possible that more would join their ranks before the checkered flag dropped. I hate to dwell on that, but it's the truth.

Today, racing is a lot more like football or baseball...just a game to most casual fans. We're queer beings; when something is hard to do and dangerous, it means more to us than when it isn't . Just as much hard work goes into running 500 miles today as it did 50 years ago( just read some of Nigel Beresford's posts), and it's still physically demanding(I remember reading Danny Sullivan's comments a few years back about the track being so rough that it wa blurring his vision, but that it really didn't matter because the centrifugal force in the corners was pulling his helmet down over his eyes and he couldn't see anyway...at 200mph!); but it's so much safer that people are getting bored...doesn't say much for us, but it just isn't very romantic anymore...

It IS safer, but it's still dangerous...and it's still a challenge. And, speeds have dropped off to the point where pole day isn't much of a deal anymore. The new qualifying format helps, but there isn't as much to look forward to anymore...I don't think anybody will ever break Arie Luyundyk's qualifying or race records.

But, what is the Speedway to do? This day was coming...can't really do much about the lack of new track records...and homogenized racing is safer and more fan friendly, gone are the days when if a driver had 3 races under his belt he was a "veteran" just because he survived that long.


Maybe part of the problem lies with us. Do we really want to go back to the days of say, 1964, and the tragedy the track almost didn't live down? I don't. I respect the old days, and love to reminisce; but sometimes I wonder, what the hell were we thinking? I wouldn't want to relive May 30, 1964 for anything. I hated that day, and still do...I'm fascinated with what happened then and why, but it still sickens me to relive those events.

Someone mentioned the variety of entertainment options available today, and that certainly plays a part in the diminishing of the prestige of the 500...it used to be that most races weren't even broadcast on radio, and that made Indy unique. Today, all the races are televised, with in-car cameras that allow us to see what the driver sees. Each race is as important as Indy to the sponsors, and we no longer have to use our imaginations...no more Sid Collins-style hyperbole to pique our interests. It all diminishes Indy by saturation.

It's all too easy to forget the fact that this year's 500 had to be one of the greatest human-interest stories of all-time...with a winner that just a few weeks earlier didn't know if he's ever be able to even stay in this country. He defeated the Brickyard against the greatest of odds, even if he DID drive for Roger Penske. It may not have been the closest of finishes, and there might not have been a lot of passing, but there was a great deal of drama and perseverance.

Isn't that what Indy has always been about? It's still there, in spades...you just have to dig a little for it nowadays...


Dan

[RStock]

You could ask Buford.....;)
Tom

Please , don't .

[fines]

Might it be that Indy is steeped too much in tradition? I mean, all that "greatest spectacle" "back home in IN", with parades, balloons and "gentlemen, start your %§&?ing engines", isn't it all a bit too "rustic", too formal, too old-fashioned, and for-crissake TOO SQUARE!!!??? I wonder, if even a middle-aged man with an interest in history (like me) thinks along those lines, what do kids who consider themselves "hip" think about the whole shebang...

[Buford]

If they wanted young people they shouldn't have kicked them out of the track using gestapo tactics by Brown Shirt Marion County Deputies, who drill year round for $1 a year for no other purpose than to have the power to act as jack booted thugs whenever deployed. The Speedway in the month of May had a decades long tradition for the colleges of the Midwest and the local high schools as a friendly place to go to party. A place you would be treated fairly and without harassment (within reason). Such unofficial events as "Senior Ditch Day" (didn't have to be a senior lol) and the two dollar entry fee allowing 9 hours of fun in the sun every day for three weeks was a magnet to the Midwest youth. I went to college in the middle of Iowa and also Peoria. Every year there were signs and school newspaper adds - rides to the Indy 500 sign up here. Trucks and van loads from schools from hundreds of miles around headed for Indy every day. It was a Spring right of passage for the young of the Midwest. It was a version of "Spring Break." Be there or be square.

Brutal physical attacks in the 1993-1994 period ordered by Tony George, mass arrests for nothing, playing frisbee, or not immediately knowing where your car keys were, or yelling "woo woo" as the Brown shirts walked by (give it up history re writers I saw all this with my own eyes and have it on video) eventually provoked a couple full fledged riots which then gave them an excuse to brutalize even more. Yes they killed the snakepit and the month long party that Tony Hulman always embraced, but they also killed the long standing mindset (culture) among the young of a 600 mile radius "the track" as it was called was a cool place to go. Last time I was there in 1997 I asked some of the girls where I stayed if they were going to the track. Their reply was "Nobody goes to the track anymore, the track is lame."

Tony Hulman knew the kids in the infield may not be actual race fans right then, but they were track fans, and they did eventually grow up and come to the track and buy tickets all their lives. And buy concessions. Leaving them some slack to have fun encouraged goodwill toward IMS and often assured many years of their patronage after they grew up and had money. He also knew their antics were part of the show, the unique, sometimes wacky and bizarre experience that was the month of May in an out of the way hick town in the cornfields called Naptown and Indian-No-place. So when they were brutalized out of Indy the Kentucky Derby embraced them and today the tens of thousands in the infield every May at Churchill Downs are the younger brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of the folks attacked by the Brownshirts a decade before. The Kentucky Derby is the new snakepit and the Indy 500 will never get the young back because the message is still out. "The track" is lame." Still another moronic move by Tony George.

Edited by Buford, 30 May 2009 - 07:44.

[fbarrett]

Friends:

You all make good and valid points, but another reason may be that the race is usually Boring!

The most exciting parts this year were watching the half dozen real contenders--and watching Danica Patrick creep up on them. The lack of wheel-to-wheel racing (blame uniformity of cars or aerodynamics) made it largely unexciting. The sanitized drivers didn't help (where's Hurtubise when we really need him?) Still, I watched it all.

Maybe we should be asking ourselves what made it exciting in the past, and how can that be re-applied. More freedom to "run what you brung" would help. What else?

By the way, since Tony's sisters are evidently sending him off to run his blessed IRL now because he spent $600 million on the place, maybe they will be more fan-friendly than he was, to try to encourage more customers. Still, Buford is correct about the deputies and the laughable yellowshirts. Instead of changing to meet the needs of its customers, the place has allowed itself to become an anachronism. Maybe Humpy Wheeler is the right guy to run it.

Frank

Edited by fbarrett, 30 May 2009 - 04:06.

[deancrew]

From my perspective I beleive the decline coincided with the advent of essentially spec cars, and not necessarily the DALLARA and the G-Force of the IRL, but perhaps during the waning days of CART when if you didn't have a REYNARD , Game Over. I think it is the same malaise which is effecting NASCAR as well. Even before the Car of Tomorrow all of the cars really looked the same, they all followed the same aero strategies of each other, no one could tell a FORD from a Chevy or a Dodge , and NASCAR allowed all individuality to cease.

INDY RACING at least as far back as I can remember was a celebration of innovation and creativity. There was as much pride about arriving with something new and unique, which perhaps gave you an advantage, as there was about winning. Think about the rapid changes between 1970 and 1975, we saw the winning cars of Al Unser in 70 /71 with no wings and FORD 4-CAMS starting the decade, and by '75 Parnelli had shown up with the first Turbo Cosworth in an adapted F1 Design with the VPJ6. What an exciting time! It wasn't crashes. . . .It was speeds increasing by 17 miles an hour between McLaren's 1971 M16, and Gurney's "72 EAGLE. What a news story. Each Chassis was unique, PARNELLI , Eagle, McLaren, Coyote , Wildcat , PENSKE , LOLA, Reynard, MARCH ,CHAPPARAL, and had its own personality and "Brand Image" if you will. An many of the cars changed and evolved yearly. There was always something new to look forward to. I can remember looking forward to the Twin 200's at Ontario in the late 70's to see all the new Indy cars before the Speedway. Phoenix and Trenton were that way too. And there were also the Stars, Unser, Foyt, Andretti , along with the dreamers who thought they might have a chance. We had F1 teams with Lotus and McLaren and Brabham, multiple chassis, Offys. 4 Cam , Foyts, Turbo Chevies, Stock Block Chevies, Turbo Cosworths, and even 4 Cam V8 Drakes, all racing against each other at the same time! Where did the demise happen? When it was decided that the "Entertainent Value and Heritage and Tradition " of the Speedway was of greater value than the people who actually created that heritage.

The Spec Car racing strategy of today is an unfortunate development that I feel has significantly negatively impacted professional racing. Really the only places you can witness true individuality in Race Cars is ALMS , F1 (Kind OF) and Off Road Trophy Truck Racing in SCORE ( No Rules !)

Remember how exciting it was at the speedway when PENSKE showed up with the Push Rod Mercs in '94 and blew everyone away! that was so incredible, he found the "LoopHole" and did what great Racing Innovators have done for Decades, he found the advantage and created something unexpected. . . .Just like wings, Turbos , Ground Effects, REAR Engine configurations. That is what is missing today. I believe we need to be inspired again, yes we need great safe racing , but we also need to see a vision of something new. Just my thoughts

[Flat Black 84]

TrackDog,

I was going to mention the safety aspect (heck, I was going to start a separate thread on the topic), but I know how sensitive some people are about safety issues and did not want to be accused of "ghoulishness." It is a very valid point, though. Would anybody want to watch boxing matches if the combattants wore crash helmets on their heads and pillows on their fists? Would they watch rodeos if the cowboys rode sheep instead of bulls? Face it, danger is exciting. And there's something awe-inspiring about watching contestants face down that danger. Safety improvements have removed that crucial tang from the sport and have undoubtedly contributed to its loss of popularity.


Michael,

What you're saying is very much what I was getting at in the original post. The Indy 500 is simply not hip. Out of the 3.9% of total viewers who actually tuned into the Indy 500, how many do you think were younger than 30? I would guess maybe 15%. That spells doom for the 500.

So, Indy can stay true to its essence, its tradition and its history and die a slow but noble death. Or it can abase itself before postmodern America's disgusting, repellent anti-culture and possibly live to fight another day. I'm not sure which option is worse.

[HDonaldCapps]

I would submit that before any coherent, informed approach can be made to discussing the Indianapolis race, the International Sweepstakes, in a "cultural" context, that perhaps the issue of just how and why it came to be the cultural icon that is should be examined. Otherwise, it is simply a continuation of the remarks and observations from another forum, even if somewhat muted. In other words, just how did this particular event manage to get itself placed among the major American sporting events such as the Kentucky Derby, the Rose Bowl, the World Series, and now the Super Bowl?

All the current discussion is simply babble, perhaps nice to know but lacking any real context to why it is of any importance in our understanding of the "culture" of the event in question.

I don't see how you can even begin to discuss its current state unless you have defined or laid out how the event came to such a level of importance in the sporting world, especially in the realm of automobile racing. Just as Topsy did not just "growed" all of a sudden, the same holds true for the event in question. What about those traditions and customs? How did they come about? How was the event perceived at various times? What contributes to its importance at various times as well as the contemporary thoughts about its place in the larger context of sporting and cultural events?

Or is that not an approach which is relevant to the original notion?

[WGD706]

Did Foreign Drivers Ruin Indy?

One of the biggest reasons why Americans have lost interest in the Indy 500, is that those golden years of the sixties produced some incredible names that raced for years. Perhaps, it was because cars were becoming safer and we weren’t losing our stars like we did in the 40’s and 50’s. Maybe with the advent of the rear engine car, sprint car experience no longer translated to success at the Speedway. This meant that there was no true ladder system for producing drivers for IndyCars. Indy Lights and Atlantics existed, but were not overly successful at consistently feeding the series with fresh American talent.

Whatever the reason, the early nineties saw dramatic numbers of long-time American drivers retire with few Americans to replace them. Within a two-year period, we lost iconic names like Johncock, Rutherford, Foyt, Mears, Andretti, Bettenhausen, Sneva and Unser Sr; all due to retirement. The 1992 race had five drivers over the age of fifty — an unheard-of age by today’s standards.

There is no easy answer as to why the Indianapolis 500 does not have the appeal it once did. Foreign drivers are nothing new. Besides the foreign invasion of the sixties and late eighties, there was another one as far back as 1913. The first decade of the race saw almost as many foreign drivers win as Americans. That certainly didn’t dissuade interest back then, but the term “back then” may explain a lot. Times were different one hundred years ago, forty years ago and twenty years ago. The tastes of the American public have changed. Skilled, brave drivers strapping themselves into mechanical wonders no longer stir the imagination as they once did.

The soaring popularity of NASCAR in the early years of this decade, has probably done it’s own damage. Not to mention that American drivers are flocking to tin-tops, but here in the south, when I say I’m going to the Indianapolis 500…more times than not, people assume it is a NASCAR race. Then the usual jokes of Bubba and flying chicken bones soon follow. In today’s world, racecar drivers are a caricature of either a Jeff Gordon corporate automaton or an Elliot Sadler…who sounds more foreign than most IndyCar drivers. They are laughed at, instead of revered.

There is not an easy solution to this problem. But the problem is to decide how to make the Indianapolis 500 — and thus, IndyCar racing in general — significant again in the eyes of the American public. Terry Angstadt, the President of the IRL Commercial Division is looking closely at racing in Brazil next year. Building a fan base there is attractive, along with the money it can bring. In this economy, that is a short-term fix. But this is primarily an American series and he’d better focus more on shoring up an eroding American fan base first, regardless of what the last names of the drivers sound like.
http://oilpressure.w...vers-ruin-indy/

Edited by WGD706, 30 May 2009 - 15:37.

[philippe charuest]

motorsport in the usa is no baseball or basketball, and is sitting on a much smaller fanbase and a lot much smaller pool of potential participant ,the usa can not sustain two (2)series of any kind of motorsport sportscar formula cars name it . the set back(decline) was cause by the split initiated by he IRL thats it. with the time it will come back to normal and there will be good racing again .and then an other bunch of hillbillies redneck will complain that theres too much foreigners... and history will repeat itself

[Jack-the-Lad]

The geniuses at IRL decided to adopt the NASCAR formula....make the racing only about the drivers...Amercians are obsessed with the cult of personality, after all....they don't really care about the cars. (Or so thought IRL). So, save money by making the cars identical and promote the driver personalities. Problem is, not enough Americans are interested in foreign drivers, by which IRL is dominated (that American driver-dominated thing didn't work out too well, eh, Tony?). So, gone are the days of the real drivers and the interesting cars. The irony is those "real drivers" were actually far more compelling than the current generation....they just weren't interested in being marketing tools.

Jack.

Edited by Jack-the-Lad, 30 May 2009 - 16:05.

[Buford]

I don't think there is any question making it safe has lowered the intensity level and along with that the edge of your chair excitement level that was Indy... and racing in general. I may be wrong though because it hasn't stopped great popularity for Nascar and F1. Of course nobody wanted to see Sachs and MacDonald incinerated, or Gordon Smiley splash his brains out from turn 3 to 4. But watching them RISK that was what was exciting. Current IRL supporters are frequently looking at statistics and pointing out how current fields are closer than ever. They will say stuff like "What was exiting about the leader leading 190 laps? The answer is nothing. But what was exciting was on every one of them when he came by and exited out of sight... you never knew if you would ever see him again.

[Bob Riebe]

I would submit that before any coherent, informed approach can be made to discussing the Indianapolis race, the International Sweepstakes, in a "cultural" context, that perhaps the issue of just how and why it came to be the cultural icon that is should be examined. Otherwise, it is simply a continuation of the remarks and observations from another forum, even if somewhat muted. In other words, just how did this particular event manage to get itself placed among the major American sporting events such as the Kentucky Derby, the Rose Bowl, the World Series, and now the Super Bowl?

All the current discussion is simply babble, perhaps nice to know but lacking any real context to why it is of any importance in our understanding of the "culture" of the event in question.

I don't see how you can even begin to discuss its current state unless you have defined or laid out how the event came to such a level of importance in the sporting world, especially in the realm of automobile racing. Just as Topsy did not just "growed" all of a sudden, the same holds true for the event in question. What about those traditions and customs? How did they come about? How was the event perceived at various times? What contributes to its importance at various times as well as the contemporary thoughts about its place in the larger context of sporting and cultural events?

Or is that not an approach which is relevant to the original notion?

I have not read all the posts here, but obviously this one and the one by Buford, I have.

Both address strong points.
As to Bufords; what he speaks of is not only at Indy but fascist pig mind-set that has enveloped the country as a whole. (During grad, classes and else where, I have spoken to law enformcemt officers, who strongly bemoan that the enfomrcement tactics now taught ARE fascist black-boot tactics. If one does not like then the recruit is told to go elsewhere.)
I never got into such tactics at races even in my hell-raising days, but if controlled, usually simply by the presence of officers watching and making sure things did not get truly out-of-hand, such pits, or swamps, or holes, served a certain crowd that came to races and over time grew out of hell-raising but still came to races.
The BIG-BROTHER mind-set that people of the U.S. have embraced, has affected ALL, not just SOME, but ALL of society, and racing is suffering for it.

As to Dons point, the Indianapolis 500 was for sixty decades the crown to strive for by the heart of U.S. automobile racing, I.E. sprint cars and such similar vehicles. There is a reason that a five to six hundred mile circle around Indianapolis is heart of U.S. racing.
NASCAR could go belly-up tomorrow but that area would keep on racing.
The CROWN that made middle America the heart is was has physically and financially severed itself from the very people who made it what it was.
Tradition still carries it, but as this country becomes a socialist hole, that tradition will become something that no longer fits.

[Bob Riebe]

The geniuses at IRL decided to adopt the NASCAR formula....make the racing only about the drivers...Amercians are obsessed with the cult of personality, after all....they don't really care about the cars. (Or so thought IRL). So, save money by making the cars identical and promote the driver personalities. Problem is, not enough Americans are interested in foreign drivers, by which IRL is dominated (that American driver-dominated thing didn't work out too well, eh, Tony?). So, gone are the days of the real drivers and the interesting cars. The irony is those "real drivers" were actually far more compelling than the current generation....they just weren't interested in being marketing tools.

Jack.

The same "look at the close racing" bs is also spewed about road racing while wondering why it is falling apart.

Back when mechanical effort, not farce dummy-down rules, made one a front runner, "close races" were the exception that made them stand-out and are remembered.
They were special.
Even at open wheel races, make loyalty drew a lot of attention (My fathers interest in Indy jumped a huge amount when Ford got serious) Spec. rules make the name on the rocker/cam-cover useless, as formula honda and ford in the IRL and CC has shown.

Now people pee and moan if some team actually shows how good (and well financed) it is and the spec. farce is exposed for what it is.
Fans used to attend races because they were fans, they hoped for the best but were usually content with whatever show was put on, now a great chunk of fans are bar-flies following the most popular stink, and leave when the most popular stink moves on.
Bob

[MPea3]

I'm not sure I have any answers but I do have a few observations and questions.

First, as a matter of culture I've always been fascinated as to how the locals saw the event. So many of them were fans of the event even if not that big a racing fan. I knew a truck driver from New Whiteland who had been to many of the 500's and had never been a fan of racing in general. he certainly had never been to any of the other great tracks in the area, it was the 500 and only the 500 that he cared about. he was quite vocal about it too, and while others I knew in the general Indianapolis area didn't say it that strongly, their actions were the same.

Second, again in talking to the locals I got a feeling that they saw the Speedway as theirs. Tony Hullman was a hero to them and it was almost as if they cherished him for protecting "their" track. I'm reminded of how Brooklyn fans saw the Dodgers as "their" team . These Brooklynites were absolutely heartbroken when the Dodgers left, and the few Indy locals I still know similarly kind of shrug off the 500 these days, something I thought I'd never see.

The manner in which the town of Speedway interacted with the drivers and teams is also something which was a curious anomaly in world class sports (or at least as far as I know). Can you imagine teams today renting rooms from local families for the month? One of my friends in Speedway speaks laughingly about how his aunt refused to rent a room to Mario Andrretti because she'd never heard of him.

That some of the drivers were locals themselves had to have something to do with it. Sure, Pancho Carter and others live in Brownsburg and other close by communities, but who of today's drivers would you run into at the local grocery store?

I also think the expansion of the teams has taken some of the romance from the sport. When the cars were beasts you could see better who could drive the car well and who couldn't. Cars themselves were the products of a man's mind, and even a man with a mind who was in the pits, not a design crew somewhere else and an array of engineers behind the pitwall with laptops. It was a personal sport.

Last, hasn't the level of race car design simply made the cars long ago outgrow the Speedway?

Just a few thoughts.

[Buford]

the few Indy locals I still know similarly kind of shrug off the 500 these days, something I thought I'd never see.

So "The track is lame" is a local manta now among the general population not just the kids? The paper historians might poo poo it never having ever experienced it, but there was far more to the lure of the Indianapolis 500 than cars and drivers. Killing the party was a buzz kill of monumental proportions. Moron George wanted to get rid of the "riff raff" and make the place safe and sanitary for families and corporate guests. But when the clown kicked out the professional racing teams, he didn't get any corporate guests. And it was Indianapolis for god's sake. Kicking out the "riff raff" means banning the majority of the population. Geez what a fool. Now he wants them back trying to lure them with concerts. If he hadn't brutalized them away, he wouldn't have to hire Three Doors Down. Killing the party culture at Indy was every bit as devastating to the event as running an outlaw scab series which pissed off the vast majority of the real race fans. So he lost them all. The real fans and the party till you puke fans who used to provide the energy all month as well as the side show, and most of all - the next generation of ticket buyers.

"The track is lame." The everlasting legacy of Tony George. One man caused that along with everything else.

[Flat Black 84]

Jack-the-lad makes a good point about drivers becoming the focal point of the Indy 500 once cars became identical. Problem is, with the exception of Danica and Helio, who among the current generation are genuinely colorful and compelling? Paul Tracy? Maybe. Tony Kanaan? A real nice guy, but not a fascinating mad-man. There simply are no Jim Hurtibises, A. J. Foyts, Eddie Sachs, Mario Andrettis, Johnny Rutherfords, Bobby Unsers, Lloyd Rubys and Johnny Parsons. And short of turning attention back to the cars (eliminating spec racing), I don't know how you solve that conundrum. Moreover, that solution is only a half solution. You'd still be left with a bunch of dull dogs behind the wheel.

[Zeroninety]

I would submit that before any coherent, informed approach can be made to discussing the Indianapolis race, the International Sweepstakes, in a "cultural" context, that perhaps the issue of just how and why it came to be the cultural icon that is should be examined. Otherwise, it is simply a continuation of the remarks and observations from another forum, even if somewhat muted. In other words, just how did this particular event manage to get itself placed among the major American sporting events such as the Kentucky Derby, the Rose Bowl, the World Series, and now the Super Bowl?

Well, the starting point is always money. Pretty much anything associated with the Speedway became beloved tradition, since it was tied in with what was then the richest payday in racing, by far. Spectators could see that teams and drivers were pushing themselves to the limit and beyond for a shot at the biggest prize there was.

However, as other series grew richer, Indy's purse didn't grow in proportion. The days when the 500 winner takes home more prize money in one day than the WDC wins in a season are gone. If the purse had always grown steadily, ensuring that one could make more at Indy in a day than NASCAR or F1 in a year, I suspect that Indy would have never stopped attracting top teams and drivers, from the US and abroad. Ten Tony George's wouldn't have been enough to screw that up, as long they kept cutting the checks. If that kind of growth in the prize money was impossible and unsustainable, then the 500 would likely have slowly declined anyway, and George's incompetence has just hastened the inevitable. CART probably slowed the decline--the purse may no longer have been utterly awe inspiring, but at least the race was a hard fought round in a strong championship series.

[ensign14]

Whatever the reason, the early nineties saw dramatic numbers of long-time American drivers retire with few Americans to replace them. Within a two-year period, we lost iconic names like Johncock, Rutherford, Foyt, Mears, Andretti, Bettenhausen, Sneva and Unser Sr; all due to retirement. The 1992 race had five drivers over the age of fifty — an unheard-of age by today’s standards.

They were still better than the Second Generation Generation (Johnny Parsons/Pancho Carter/Billy Vukovich/James McElreath) that came on stream in the 1970s, who between them had something like 2 wins in toto. Blame USAC for that one, front-engined sprint cars to rear engined Champ cars was too much of a stretch. Sneva of course came through with a rear-engined sprint car...the breakthrough talents who grew up in that decade came from outside the traditional path. Sullivan and Rahal and so on. Far easier to adapt from a rear-engine background. The Bobby Unsers were muddling through at the same time as everyone else, so they learned earlier and quicker.

But I doubt very much that the loss of a load of names that had not been competitive in ages (Unser Sr excepted) would have mattered. There were new stars to create and being created.

[PCC]

The paper historians might poo poo it never having ever experienced it, but there was far more to the lure of the Indianapolis 500 than cars and drivers. Killing the party was a buzz kill of monumental proportions.

Well what the heck, since I am a "paper" historian... I take your point and don't doubt it, but is it possible you're overemphasizing it? The great majority of TV viewers were never aware of the Party Buzz, and the lack of it can't be what's making them switch off now. And I doubt the Party Buzz was what persuaded Jim Clark and Colin Chapman that the 500 was something worth conquering. For some reason(s), the race used to be viewed - internationally, by fans and racers alike - as larger than life. For whatever reasons, it isn't any more.

[Buford]

Well what the heck, since I am a "paper" historian... I take your point and don't doubt it, but is it possible you're overemphasizing it? The great majority of TV viewers were never aware of the Party Buzz, and the lack of it can't be what's making them switch off now. And I doubt the Party Buzz was what persuaded Jim Clark and Colin Chapman that the 500 was something worth conquering. For some reason(s), the race used to be viewed - internationally, by fans and racers alike - as larger than life. For whatever reasons, it isn't any more.

No you are correct - I was addressing the part of why nobody is in the stands or infield anymore all month until the last 2 days. Not TV ratings. The party had nothing to do with that as you say. I am saying, on a discussion of Indy 500 culture - there were two different cultures combined to make Indy not only the Greatest Spectacle in racing, but a month long unmissable late spring festival. Most of you are discussing one aspect - the racing part. There was another aspect, the cultural event that took place that was a month long USA Midwest phenomenon seen nowhere else in the world. Well OK maybe Mardi Gras or Oktoberfest or Carnival in Rio would be similar. Indy for decades was in that league. Just with more missing teeth.

The party then, and now even though it is a shadow of its former self, brings in far more of the 250,000 to 300,000 spectators than the racing ever did. Not 10% of the spectators have a clue what is going on, or could name more than 8 drivers, and never could!!!! Indy was never about a race on the actual scene for the vast majority who attended except for hard core types like us. The dirty little secret, was, and still is on site anyway, it is a party where they let us make some noise with our silly little cars. The three hours of noise making is the excuse and the final act of what once was a 3 week build up... the greatest spectacle in partying. It still exists on race weekend, but the previous 3 or now 2 weeks are dead, and the young people TG is now trying to attract back to the track with concerts, he used to have there every day and he had his thugs beat them with billy clubs. They will never be back.

Edited by Buford, 30 May 2009 - 21:26.

[TrackDog]

Maybe what Indy needs is a Legends Race and a $10 million purse for the 500 winner...while they're at it, they could move the start time back up so that Smoke and some others could do the double, if their sponsors would stand for it...



Dan

[lotuspoweredbyford]

I am interested in learning more about these "brutal physical attacks" that Tony George "ordered".

[Buford]

I am interested in learning more about these "brutal physical attacks" that Tony George "ordered".

As I said Marion County Deputies - 1993 and 1994 - started two major riots. It was reported in the newspapers at the time and also video on the local stations though obviously because the Indy press was in IMS's pocket it was portrayed as track violence started by fans but it really was the Brownshirts. I recall front page Star or News or both newspaper photos so if you really want to doubt me go look it up. This came after TG announced they were getting rid of the "Riff Raff." After that the usually friendly State Police who had monitored the place for years were replaced by the mercenary Brown Shirt thugs. I have some of it on video, both shot by myself and from local TV. They would start it by random arrests for anything and everything creating tension and resistance. Then by beating up some guy, people would jump in to try to help the victim, more Brownshirts would wade through the crowd swinging clubs at anyone in the way, bottles would be thrown, before long you have a serious riot.

That was a time when there actually was a vast crowd in the infield on practice and qualifying days. Did TG order beating up kids in the infield? He obviously ordered a change of attitude from friendly benign police presence designed to monitor safety but not legislate morality that had presided for 20 previous years, to suddenly bringing in a force of $1 per year volunteer thugs who he gave free reign to brutalize anybody they wanted to without restraint and oversight and didn't put a stop to it the first time it happened. That is close enough to "ordered" for my tastes. Instead of a few cops walking around, mostly smiling and posing for silly photos with the kids and occasionally making a 14 year old pour out his beer before letting him go, with the real muscle hidden away back in the infield to bring out only if needed as they had deployed for years, suddenly a huge fenced in compound was built in turn 4 with brown police jail buses and processing tables and a myriad of clerks, photo stations and support troupes arrived. Clearly they were planning to provoke trouble and make mass arrests.

Why do you think the infield crowds disappeared anyway? It wasn't because TG hurt their feelings. He sent his jackbooted thugs making massive numbers of random arrests for absolutely nothing. Police record to plague youngsters all their lives because their frisbee went astray and hit a brownshirt in the back of the head. The word got out, which was the intention, if you went to the track and went to the infield, there was a good chance of being arrested for absolutely nothing, or worse beaten up and charged with assaulting law enforcement etc. By 1995 the infield crowd on practice days and qualifying days was a small fraction of what it was a couple years before and by 1996, because of the split and the brutality, it was gone completely. Now the asshole is trying to lure them back.

I could list dozens of things I saw like a girl in a fully covered bikini top told put a shirt on. She says why? Immediate arrest, slammed to the ground, 225 pound thug knee in the middle of her back, girls friend screams and tries to pull him off. Blind side billy club blast knocking the 105 pound teenager to her knees. bottle thrown, thugs race into the crowd knocking over bar B Q, hot coals flying, swinging clubs at anybody standing by. Girl asleep in back of pickup. Thug wakes her up. You are under arrest. Why? Public drunkenness. But I was asleep! Head lock dragged out of the truck to the grown. resisting arrest, assault on an police officer... on an on. That's all I feel like typing. I called the ACLU hoping to get some lawyers to help the kids but they said they didn't have the funding to take on cases unless they presented constitutional issues. I said isn't police brutality and false arrests for trumped up charges a constitutional issue. They said yes but hard to win on private land. If it was on a public street they might have an interest.

I think you know Robin Miller from what I have read elsewhere. Next time you see him ask him about the Snakepit videos and the Hooter Historians.

Edited by Buford, 31 May 2009 - 00:52.

[RStock]

Blame USAC for that one, front-engined sprint cars to rear engined Champ cars was too much of a stretch. Sneva of course came through with a rear-engined sprint car...

Well Sneva drove it , but it was owned by Carl Gehlhausen and built by Eddie Baue . It was actually a converted Huffaker Indy car . I can't really blame them for banning that particular design . But I always considered them more of a "Super Modified" anyway .

They were still better than the Second Generation Generation (Johnny Parsons/Pancho Carter/Billy Vukovich/James McElreath) that came on stream in the 1970s, who between them had something like 2 wins in toto.
the breakthrough talents who grew up in that decade came from outside the traditional path. Sullivan and Rahal and so on. Far easier to adapt from a rear-engine background. The Bobby Unsers were muddling through at the same time as everyone else, so they learned earlier and quicker.

But I doubt very much that the loss of a load of names that had not been competitive in ages (Unser Sr excepted) would have mattered. There were new stars to create and being created.

Your spot on there . The lack of rear engine experience is the main reason for the downfall of the Indy car series , in my opinion . The short tracks fought against any rear engine class . And it wasn't just the Sprint Car ranks . A local fellow came out with a rear-engine modified , but it was quickly banned , even though it was an abject failure .

Another problem , as far as I see it , it the lack of road courses to compete on . In my area , there are probably over a dozen oval tracks within a 100 to 200 mile radius of my home , I couldn't even tell you how far it is to the nearest road course . There was one about thirty miles away , but it was a well kept secret , used only for SCCA club races with no advertisement or fanfare , and I don't think it is in use anymore .

There is a strong need for a class of rear engine car that can be run not only on a road course , but a dirt or asphalt oval with minimum modification . And more road courses also . If folks are going to build that type of car , they need places to race it . But I'm not sure the interest would be there if such a series was available .

[deancrew]

Boy there are quite a few interesting perspectives here, and all have quite valid elements within all of them. The psychological component I think is hard to analysis tho. I do think in its prime the Speedway was aspired to by many all over the world. It WAS Larger than life. To have that many people in one place for that event was amazing. It was a Modern Colosseum. Hollywood Stars would attend, and Racers from all over the world at least considered the event to be one of the great ones. The comments about the Truly Great names of Motor Sport going away is a great one as well. So many grew up with the names of Foyt, Andretti, Unser, and Gurney programmed into their heads. Even the uneducated Fan knew of Foyt and Andretti, they were almost like household names. They Knew these names were great drivers, and when they finished driving they had Teams to continue their legacy, and more importantly, continued to be Recognized by the Fans at the Track.

Today the most significant name is PENSKE. Foyt has become not relevant , and Andretti not yet established, and for sure has none of the Charisma or presence of his Grandfather Mario. Sure there are people who don't care WHO the drivers are, but I believe there are far more who WANT to know. The great ones are gone, and no one has replaced them. What happens when PENSKE's gone. Where will the link back be? Or when Foyt is gone. No one has picked up the mantle. Its almost like there not being a PETTY legacy, or an ALLISON. NSACAR has experienced some of this as well. The history and Nobles have left.

Indy''s stature was also reinforced during the Total Performance years of FORD in the 60's as someone has stated. So many Drivers owe their Careers to the money FORD spent from '62-70. And I beleive that was a time where the Speedway really came into its own. It had TV before many other Races as well. If not for FORD I really don't believe we would have the historic names we revere today. Ford funded all of Mario's, Foyt's, Parnelli's, & Unsers, thru the late 60's. They raced everything from Stocks to single -seaters, and Sports Prototypes to Bonneville , from LeMans, to Monte Carlo, Daytona, Riverside, and BAJA. It was like the Superstars. And when guys like Foyt , Andretti, and Gurney won everything from Indycars to NASCAR, LeMans, AND F1. . . In 1 Year! Thats significant. That gets people noticed. NOBODY in the last 20 years at Indy has done that. No one. So maybe the Greats Don't race there anymore? USAC had Sprints , Midgets, Asphalt Champ cars, Road Racing, and Stock Cars. . . .And these guys raced in ALL of them, gaining points for an overall Championship. In 1974 Mario raced in Indycars, Alfa Romeo Sportcars, F 5000, F-1, and Champ Dirt Cars. . . In 1 Year! What variety. Everyone specializes now, no one tries everything.

Plus now we have not just the Indy 500, But the Brickyard 400, we had had the F-1 Race, and MotoGP, all at he Speedway. Its hard to keep the "SPECTACLE" alive when its competing with itself. And today we have more extreme danger defying shows to keep our attention. The X-Games showcase unbelievable danger. . . World Rallying, and DAKAR + MotoCross all are far more dangerous appearing and keep everyone on the edge. Several times a year. Pretty hard to beat that with Indy cars that don't race side by side anymore! We have so many choices today on TV, on 200+ Channels, + the internet.

I agree with another comment that if you want to increase the spectacle, 10-15$ mil to the Winner, allow individuality to return to the cars, allow the Drama to increase, get the cars actually racing side by side lap after lap. Let the speeds increase a bit, Once 200 happened in '77 the Drama was gone. And get some names there that Fans can love and know. Lewis Hamliton, Earnhardt Jr, Travis Pastrana, Find new stars with Character, passion, and with Flaws intact. . .not Robots.

[Flat Black 84]

Do the great ones no longer race at Indy because the 500 is no longer great, or did the sudden disappearance of the great ones cause the 500 to lose its greatness? Chicken/egg.

PS--The suggestion that the 500 allow experimental engineering, increase speeds, and foster side-by-side driving is a formula for improvement, I believe. But do modern drivers have the stones to engage in such racing? The safety-at-all-cost approach to racing that now dominates and the fearfulness of modern drivers makes me wonder if even a 10-15 million dollar purse would compel this bunch to really lay it on the line. I'm just not convinced that the present-day West is manufacturing the stout hearts who drove at Indy in the mid-80s and before.

[Buford]

Do the great ones no longer race at Indy because the 500 is no longer great, or did the sudden disappearance of the great ones cause the 500 to lose its greatness? Chicken/egg.

PS--The suggestion that the 500 allow experimental engineering, increase speeds, and foster side-by-side driving is a formula for improvement, I believe. But do modern drivers have the stones to engage in such racing? The safety-at-all-cost approach to racing that now dominates and the fearfulness of modern drivers makes me wonder if even a 10-15 million dollar purse would compel this bunch to really lay it on the line. I'm just not convinced that the present-day West is manufacturing the stout hearts who drove at Indy in the mid-80s and before.

They still exist I think in the X Games and snowboarder types youngsters both boys and girls. They still have the devil may care swagger. We just have the wrong kids in the cars.

[canon1753]

It got too corporate. Too much corporate money to go to the suites and too much money to let the party go on. Too much corporate money which means everything is professional (in itself not a bad thing) and all of the drivers need to go to charm (or zombie) school. Too much money to let things get out of hand- specify more and more things. Penske in 94 can't happen again- one dominant car or team is bad...

Yet, the money is dwindling away, the teams are much smaller and the spec cars seem to be rare or expensive or both. I couldn't get a few year old car with a cheap motor and run a few ICS races on out of pocket money.

Spec cars end up allowing you to tune it only so much. That "so much" is expensive and is where the money is spent these days, I'd guess...

I suppose you could blame road racers or USAC abandoning rear engined cars, but I think it was the Chevy Ilmor. You see, only the best teams got the best motors, so you clearly had a have or have not situation. None of the USAC guys could get a Chevy, so, they went for the cheap and fast Buick which meant they couldn't run competitively in CART races, so they only showed up at Indy. Once they couldn't run a shoestring Indy program they left. The younger guys were already looking to NASCAR anyway.

[Buford]

Good analysis I think. Funny though Churchill Downs has as many monied fat cats as Indy or more and they have found a way to embrace 60,000 or more party animals in the infield (and their money) while also accommodating their black tie bunch in the stands and the suites. And every year on the TV broadcast they show a little of the infield and then with a nudge nudge smirk type comment by the announcers they say something like "Sorry we can't show you much more of what goes on down there but believe me is gets pretty wild at times. Yeah its really something down there wink wink." Then they cut to some barely covered big-boobed chick on a guys shoulders and some guys waving beers and then cut away quickly. Watch, they do it every year.

[ensign14]

It got too corporate. Too much corporate money to go to the suites and too much money to let the party go on. Too much corporate money which means everything is professional (in itself not a bad thing) and all of the drivers need to go to charm (or zombie) school.

This is the thing I can never understand. Which driver shifted the most merchandise? Dale Earnhardt - and he was hated by more people than adored him. Darrell Waltrip and Paul Tracy deliberately donned the black hat and gained huge amounts of publicity for themselves and their series as a result. I'm not aware that sponsors were ever put off by this, did anyone turn off Mountain Dew because they sponsored Jaws? Danica Patrick is the franchise player in the IRL now and she polarizes opinions, but gets the casual fan interested. Heck, the best paid professional wrestler for a long time was Gorgeous George Wagner because people paid to see him get beaten up - and his biggest disciple was Cassius Clay. When will sponsors learn that people are actually quite interested in seeing drivers with personalities? One way or another?

[Lemnpiper]

Hi Guys,

THIS thread is what all racing threads should be all like !


Something else to consider about the time when Foyt ,Bobby & Al Unser Johncock ,Mario retired is that prior to say 1963 the odds were at least 2 would have been killed in some form of racing before they could enjoy that extended a carrer. And i suspect they knew of sdozen of racers they raced that died in racing accidents.

Cliff Bergere had the record for Indy starts at 15 for a long time.

The End result is nowadays i wonder if many of the current drivers think "heck i've got PLENTY of years to win so i wont force the issue THIS year but wait til next year , while guys that came up prior to say 1963 werent even assured there would even be a next year. So you end up with less drivers with "personality"



Paul

[Chezrome]

This is the thing I can never understand. Which driver shifted the most merchandise? Dale Earnhardt - and he was hated by more people than adored him. Darrell Waltrip and Paul Tracy deliberately donned the black hat and gained huge amounts of publicity for themselves and their series as a result. I'm not aware that sponsors were ever put off by this, did anyone turn off Mountain Dew because they sponsored Jaws? Danica Patrick is the franchise player in the IRL now and she polarizes opinions, but gets the casual fan interested. Heck, the best paid professional wrestler for a long time was Gorgeous George Wagner because people paid to see him get beaten up - and his biggest disciple was Cassius Clay. When will sponsors learn that people are actually quite interested in seeing drivers with personalities? One way or another?

To add to that: when will sponsors (and many fans) learn that not only frontrunners are interesting? I am always amazed that in F1 teams like Force India are scorned because they are 2.0 seconds of the pole (two seconds!). All this talk about new teams not being worthy on the grid because they would not be able to win or score points. So what? Its like a crazy phantasy that all 33 cars should be as equally fast, and race each other within 0.1 seconds.

[Lemnpiper]

To add to that: when will sponsors (and many fans) learn that not only frontrunners are interesting? I am always amazed that in F1 teams like Force India are scorned because they are 2.0 seconds of the pole (two seconds!). All this talk about new teams not being worthy on the grid because they would not be able to win or score points. So what? Its like a crazy phantasy that all 33 cars should be as equally fast, and race each other within 0.1 seconds.

Chezrome ,

I fear one big factor that have nots get so little press is caused by the mentality of "WINNING IS EVERYTHING AND 2ND PLACE IS 1ST LOSER" now permiating society. Not everyone can win and without the losers there would be no winner ( or a very small field).

Paul

[Chezrome]

Chezrome ,

I fear one big factor that have nots get so little press is caused by the mentality of "WINNING IS EVERYTHING AND 2ND PLACE IS 1ST LOSER" now permiating society. Not everyone can win and without the losers there would be no winner ( or a very small field).

Paul

It is not about the little pressattention. Ofcourse the winners gets more press. But its the condescense about teams that are not top notch. Look what Justin Wilson is doing with a small team. That is wonderfull too.

[Derek Pitt]

Culture ?

Does anybody in their right mind think Indy has any relevance to world motor racing ?

It is a local side show borne out of fair ground racing- oval dirt track racing at State Fairs- it is relevent only to the people who put in - Ma and Pa Kettle and Pat Boone


In 1960 John Cooper and the then twice World Champion Jack Brabham took a 2.5 Cooper there and were appallled.

In 1963, Chapman and Clark went there in pursuit of quick dollars...and Chapman said he thought he was in pre-war Europe ......front engined roadsters from 1930's...a time warp.

We have seen how Masten Gregory and Walt Hansgen were treated by the oval racing cigar smokers .......luckily Jack had raced at Bathurst and Longford and both he and Clark had won a World Championships - so both knew what real motor racing was about, but still each had to do insulting qualifying laps .

Overlooking the cheating of 1963 and the Cappien attempts to glorify history, to an independient Aussie. I see nothing here beyond , to quote our former eloquent Prime Miister Keating, "a dog going back to its vomit"


Derek

[Ray Bell]

That quote's actually from the bible, Stan...

2 Peter 2:22 - Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit" and "A sow that is washed goes back to wallowing in the mud."

No idea how Paul Keating might have learned of that one.

And Jack raced there in '61, not '60, and with a 2.7-litre car.

[Derek Pitt]

That quote's actually from the bible, Stan...

2 Peter 2:22 - Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit" and "A sow that is washed goes back to wallowing in the mud."

No idea how Paul Keating might have learned of that one.

And Jack raced there in '61, not '60, and with a 2.7-litre car.

Ray.

I said they went there..after the US GP. I think, with a 2.5 T53 , I didnt say raced there....that was in 1961 old chap.. 1 year BC (Bib's 1st year) .

Are u in a Motel, or are you a God botherer?

Derek

[Ray Bell]

There's a bible lying beside the bed where I'm staying at my stepson's place...

But I knew the phrase was in there anyway.

[Derek Pitt]

There's a bible lying beside the bed where I'm staying at my stepson's place...

But I knew the phrase was in there anyway.

Ok Ray

I was arguing over Cooper etc....i respect your beliefs..

Derek

[Flat Black 84]

Culture is culture, DP. Whether or not it rises to your standards of refinement is neither here nor there.

And the question is not whether the 500 is relevant to motor sport today (that is another and very worthy topic), it is why the Indy 500's popularity has diminished so dramatically. I have argued that a key reason for this decline is the 500's lack of cultural relevance. I doubt its relevance to motor sport (defined by you as appealing to Eastern hemisphere drivers) has much to do with the race's drop in popularity.

[Derek Pitt]

Culture is culture, DP. Whether or not it rises to your standards of refinement is neither here nor there.

And the question is not whether the 500 is relevant to motor sport today (that is another and very worthy topic), it is why the Indy 500's popularity has diminished so dramatically. I have argued that a key reason for this decline is the 500's lack of cultural relevance. I doubt its relevance to motor sport (defined by you as appealing to Eastern hemisphere drivers) has much to do with the race's drop in popularity.

Flat Black,

My argument is that , the "Americans" chose their own side street - as in almost everything else, just to be different from the Brits - and you can not now whine when us Aussies and Euros dun give a toss about your specilaised oval racing.


Talk about Phill Hill, Ginther, Gregory, et al and we r interested.

Derek

[HDonaldCapps]

Hi Guys,

THIS thread is what all racing threads should be all like !

For the easily entertained, perhaps, but such hyperbole is quite displaced since this thread is scarcely one for the ages. Indeed, it is mostly just random, disconnected, often acerbic comments -- with the usual politcal prattle mixed in for good measure -- that scarcely illuminates us as to why, much less how, the event in Indianapolis mananged to become a major Event, not just a sports event, in America. Sprinkled in amongst the offerings are some bits and pieces when placed into a context or added to other information could be very useful. As for the rest, which is largely the usual one-dimensional rehashing of the AOWR wars, it could be moved to Racing Comments and not be missed here.

So, cultural historians, just how did this event manage to do what none of the other events associated with automobile racing in America proved capable doing? Why not the Vanderbilt Cup or the Grand Prize events? Why not any of a number of other venues and events from the period that the IMS and the International Sweepstakes originated? Why not the USGP or the Southern 500? Just when did the International Sweepstakes separate itself from the pack? When did it become an Event, that is, when did the hyperbole begin to well and truly kick in and turn it into something besides "just a race?" What factors were used and manipulated by the IMS management to create the aura of the race being an Event and not just a race? What factors outside the IMS contributed to the making of this into an Event? Along with many other related questions which spin out from these, of course.

Given that the original charge was somewhat vague and a bit murky, if you are going to take a cultural approach to examining this Event, shouldn't these be the sorts of issues and questions that should be on the table?

Of course, I am simply a "book historian" and probably don't know any better so forgive me for interrupting things to pose such an approach.

[Flat Black 84]

DP,

Yes, America created the Indy 500 just to separate from the hated Brits. And you call us arrogant. Sadly, you are an examplar of a certain species of European race fan who resents the fact that historically--if not currently--the greatest racing event on the planet took place in the US rather than in Europe. Fortunately, the vast majority of TNFers are more mature and intelligent than that.

PS--Short of doing extensive primary source research it is unlikely that any poster will unearth the origins of the Indy 500's cultural centrality in the US. This is a website and lends itself to quick-and-dirty speculation rather than paradigm-shifting historical analysis. However, if somebody is willing to provide a healthy publication advance, this is a project I'd be willing to tackle.

Edited by Flat Black 84, 31 May 2009 - 14:59.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
.....that scarcely illuminates us as to why, much less how, the event in Indianapolis mananged to become a major Event, not just a sports event, in America.....

So, cultural historians, just how did this event manage to do what none of the other events associated with automobile racing in America proved capable doing? Why not the Vanderbilt Cup or the Grand Prize events? Why not any of a number of other venues and events from the period that the IMS and the International Sweepstakes originated? Why not the USGP or the Southern 500? Just when did the International Sweepstakes separate itself from the pack? When did it become an Event, that is, when did the hyperbole begin to well and truly kick in and turn it into something besides "just a race?" What factors were used and manipulated by the IMS management to create the aura of the race being an Event and not just a race? What factors outside the IMS contributed to the making of this into an Event? Along with many other related questions which spin out from these, of course.....

I think you ask a most relevant question here, Don...

But you've probably built the answer into your question and not noticed.

The Vanderbilt Cup and the US Grand Prize differed markedly from the Indianapolis 500, the USGP and the Southern 500. They were held at venues not under the direct control of the organisers.

The USGP then separates from the three which were held at venues owned by the organisers because from the seventies on there was a level of 'ownership' of the event vested in the F1 cartel. The Southern 500 had only just graduated to become a '500' at that time, it was a bit of an interloper in all of this.

So it can probably fairly be said that Indy took the mantle because it was in control of its destiny, able to be stable and have a predictable future. Of course, the original reason behind this was monetary... being able to charge admission and control the gate properly, but there were so many spin-offs that it all went a lot deeper.

[ensign14]

So, cultural historians, just how did this event manage to do what none of the other events associated with automobile racing in America proved capable doing? Why not the Vanderbilt Cup or the Grand Prize events? Why not any of a number of other venues and events from the period that the IMS and the International Sweepstakes originated?

I suppose it was the perfect distance to be an Event. 500 miles, so that it was longer than everything else, but unlike the 24 hour dirt track marathons was just about the right distance to keep everyone entertained. Especially when 1912 proved you could not go home early.

Then there was the exclusivity. The first purpose-built speedway in the States, so it got in first. Then it got rid of most of its dirt-track-esque tiny events, so you had one shot to win there. And the other 500 mile events were not seen as such a big deal (was the prize money lower?). Maybe the early foreign participation showed it was a genuinely world-class event? IIRC Barney Oldfield was hailed as a World Champion when he beat Thery in a matchrace series on the Brighton Beach oval, so there was an interest in seeing the best in the world. Indy kept close to the Grand Prix formula for quite a while.

As for the Grand Prize, they sort of buggered that up between themselves, firstly not being able to control the Long Island crowds, secondly that whole AAA/ACA split thing, thirdly not going to Savannah when they had the chance and fourthly by restricting it pretty much to stock chassis. The Vanderbilt Cup may have been a bit of a timing victim, coming on stream just as the French were having a hissy fit at being beaten by the Germans and Italians, it was meant to go outside America for the third iteration but no-one could be bothered to pick it up. And by 1919 the road races were dying, too much danger and hassle.

But that's looking at it in retrospect. At the time Indy seems to have been the entry magnet, getting the biggest entries, but was that just because all the local manufacturers could have a go cheaply? Not so easy to get to Savannah or Santa Monica. But the Europeans were mostly Indy-centric, only Fiat and Mercedes seemed to take the Grand Prize and Vanderbilt seriously and then only briefly.

But from today's perspective it seems to have been an Event from day one. To the extent that Harroun came out of retirement to race in it. The Elgin races for example never got an entry into the forties.

Edited by ensign14, 31 May 2009 - 15:11.