What are the real issues?
CK1
do with this as an individual, and that is a key consideration. It strikes
me that most IRL fans have a slavish devotion to Mr. George, the IRL, and
the IMS. There seems to be this mythos that Tony George is just protecting
what is "good" and "the American way." I just don't understand.
So, he didn't like the fact that owners were dominant over track owners. I
am sorry, but is this a "real" issue? I mean, was the old CART/PPG
championship doing damage to Indy?
I have heard some many reasons why the IRL was created and why it is
important, and none of them make sense. Why would someone ever want to
create a series of racing that has as its showpiece "the Greatest Specatacle
In Racing" and then say, "we want it to be a cheap as possible spec series."
So, what are the issues:
Turbo vs. Normally Aspirated
Owners vs. Track People
Engine Lease vs. Purchase
Money vs. Spec Series
Exposure vs. Down Home Americana
Tony George & Ego vs. CART
Wonderingly,
CK1
Turbo Al
All of the above in just about equal proportions.
Cheers, TA
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mike De Quardo
All of these are pertinent but the last is the only real issue.
Mike
Indianapolis Motor Speedway's Indy 500 1911-1995, R.I.P.
SterlingLA
all. What's more, CART succeeded in making their series more visible, which
only helped make the participants at Indy more familiar to the public.
Given that Indy was supposed to represent a sort of ultimate showcase for open
wheel racing, the fact that it was expensive never bothered me. Why
*wouldn't* the "best of the best" be racing in expensive equipment and with the
latest technology?
I wish TG could've used his money/clout/power to expand opportunities for those
he felt were being denied the opportunity to race at Indy in more positive
ways. Perhaps guaranteeing a ride to one or two participants based on their
USAC wins, or some other merit system.
Financial assistance to the Buick (or any other equivalent) engine program, to
make more engines available. Even a training program (which the IRL sort of
is, by implication) could have been figured out, with some sort of "school" or
practice sessions being set up at most any oval, or Indy itself.
But those issues weren't really as important to Mr. George as his apparent
dislike of CART doing so well, and in his mind, having "power" over him. So,
he chose a more exclusive, prohibitive premise for the Indy 500, denying CART
much of its momentum with its engine suppliers, and suggesting that road and
street venues would be totally irrelevant to the new way. Even though they
drew good crowds and gave exposure to the Indy teams, this was not what tony
wanted. According to Tony, this was not what American audiences wanted. Nice
going!
So now, Indy wallows as a large shell of an event, with alot of anonymity in
the fields, and invisibity for the series that is supposed to nurture it. The
symbiosis that CART and the Speedway had is now all gone.
But I have to laugh as I read IRL supporters here,
getting all excited because Michael Andretti (and other CART drivers/teams) are
entering Indy. One need not read between the lines to see that the CART
participation raises the stakes, or validates the Indy tradition much more than
the IRL presence.
Funny, but also, quite sad.
SterlingLA (Sterling Smith)
ra300z
There really aren't any issues. Except that Tony George wanted
control of the entire series.
---
http://go.to/ra300z
Degrelle44
I'll try to answer this from the perspective of a fan.
>>Turbo vs. Normally Aspirated<<
Maybe some tech-heads get excited about this issue, but I certainly do not. I
want see very fast cars. If turbochargers achieve that, then I'm for it...
>>Owners vs. Track People<<
This is internal stuff about which I care little...
>>Engine Lease vs. Purchase<<
CART produces an extremely competitive and entertaining series with leased
engines. The IRL has produced nothing better with an alternative format...
>>Money vs. Spec Series<<
I assume you are referring here to the mythical "low-cost formula" which Tony
George has supposedly devised. Costs are meaningless to me -- a fan. CART,
the supposedly high-cost series, gives me over twenty races a year with stable
teams competing in every race. The IRL, on the other hand, with its supposed
"low-cost formula" can barely run half that number with teams coming and going
so much that you can't keep up with them...
>>Exposure vs. Down Home Americana<<
I assume this is referring to the "heroes from the short tracks" myth. The
IRL, like CART, is dominated by drivers with road-racing backgrounds. The few
short-trackers which still race in the IRL are backmarkers...
>>Tony George & Ego vs. CART<<
Bingo. That's the only real issue.
Mark McCauley
news:3abfa9f3$1...@rpc1284.daytonoh.ncr.com...
> What are the real issues here?
> Tony George & Ego vs. CART
tjmc
[snipped the fine May whine--in spite of it being in season]
>So, what are the issues:
>Turbo vs. Normally Aspirated
>Owners vs. Track People
>Engine Lease vs. Purchase
>Money vs. Spec Series
>Exposure vs. Down Home Americana
>Tony George & Ego vs. CART
None of the above...though number two comes close.
This issue was simply the long term survival of the Indy 500.
When someone is given such an obligation, however he may have been given
it, there are certain responsibilities. Leaving its fate almost
entirely to an organization who has difficulty staging its own events,
is virtually controlled by its component manufacturers and is now
fiduciarily bound to faceless Wall Street money men would hardly qualify
as responsible stewardship.
Now that the issue has been successfully dealt with, feel glad, sit back
and enjoy the great race.
BobT
> Tony George & Ego vs. CART
>
> Wonderingly,
>
> CK1
At the risk of feeding a troll, my observations and opinions in no
particular order...
CK1, you don't get it because you don't want to.
CART *was* attempting to devalue the '500. They were saying: "Look, Tony,
it's very expensive to spend the entire month of May here. We have lots of
other promoters that want to bring us in to race, you know. We certainly
love the purse you offer, which is more than the rest of our series
combined, and we'd like to keep coming back. But how about we unload
Thursday, practice Friday, qualify Saturday, race Sunday and be gone by
Monday?"
Now CK1, say you're TG, the caretaker of what is (whether you like it or
not) the greatest motorsports tradition in America, the only auto race the
majority of Americans know about, and the best paying one to boot. Would
you want CART treating your event as just another stop on their tour? Throw
away all that made it the tradition (and moneymaker) it is? I doubt it.
(Before you raise the red herring of the money, stop and consider what the
CART owners are in it for.)
CART was/is dancing to the tune of the engine manufacturers. CART knows it
and now admits it. Race team owners vs. track owners isn't the issue. The
issue is people who sell racing vs. people who sell cars. Manufacturers
couldn't care less about the competition since that isn't their product.
Look at the top class of ALMS which has been dominated by Audi for three
years plus. Audi doesn't care whether Sebring is any good to watch so long
as they finish 1-2-3. CART was going in the same direction. IMO, TG was
trying to save CART owners from themselves.
Once TG decided that he couldn't reason with CART and split, he was
obligated to change the formula to protect the participants who decided to
go with him. Turbo vs NA is no more complicated than that. CART teams can
still show up and race, as Ganassi, Walker and Penske are proving, but they
have to do it on terms that are a bit more favorable to the smaller, less
moneyed participants. Also, since those that followed are a tad less
moneyed than the typical CART team, making it more of a spec series helps
get more competitors in the door. Keep in mind that CART has never to my
knowledge *had* 33 cars to enter in the '500, so TG has always had to look
out for the 'little guys' that were rounding out the field.
"Down Home Americana" (aka "Heroes of the Short Tracks")? Red herring
invented by the anti-IRL crowd.
TG ego? Please. He has too much money to give one sh*t about what you (or
the CART owners) think of him.
The IRL is not always the best product, but it is accomplishing the goal of
keeping the 'race people' in charge of the racing, and keeping the doors
open to those who don't have connections at the Mercedes or Honda factories.
IRL vs. CART? IRL is slowly winning the war. CART is slowly imploding.
Both of those things were inevitable. The real problem is that the both of
them have been getting killed by NASCAR, but the chinks in NASCAR's armor
are starting to show.
The better question to ask, CK1, is in a time when every major racing series
is looking for ways to slow the cars down, whether auto racing will be
around at all fifty years from now.
Nomex suit put on... fire away.
BobT
Ken Plotkin
[snip]
>This issue was simply the long term survival of the Indy 500.
[snip]
Even more so than that was the survival - or, more properly, attempted
resurrection - of American Championship car racing.
Big Cars were the pinnical of open wheel racing. The 500 was the top
of the heap. The Championship Trail was where the 500 racers ran
their season.
In the 60s, some European road racers decided to invade the 500. Two
World Champions won the race - very cool. But they brought about a
shift in car design. And they brought with them a group of road
racers. Owners like Roger Penske, who grew up on the SCCA road
circuits.
CART evolved from that. Very cool series - good racing, good drivers,
etc. But they hijacked the Championship Trail. The top league of US
Open Wheel was gone.
When was the last time a kid from Pennsylvania got a shot at the big
time on the basis of winning three midget features in one weekend?
I think IMS would survive and prosper one way or another. Hell,
NASCAR is prospering even under its current style - homogeneous cars
and drivers, promoted by an occasional nostalgia clip of what it used
to be. Their big race is on a paved track named after the place that
made them famous.
(Look at yesterday - everyone went wild over the 21 car beating the
43. But it was fed by memories of who used to drive those cars.)
I think TG had enormous courage to put the 500 on the line to save
American racing. Not many track owners would have the balls to risk a
sure, comfortable thing for the greater good.
Ken Plotkin
Tententhsinc
>From: tjmc tj...@enteract.com
>Now that the issue has been successfully dealt with, feel glad, sit back
>and enjoy the great race.
Ganassi, Penske, now Michael. Anyone
care to guess who's next? A chassis
builder, perhaps an engine builder,
or two?
I do hope all the "visitors" enjoyed their
stay in Phoenix last weekend.
Mark McCauley
GIVEN an "obligation"?!
Do you mean George INHERITED some "obligation"? He was NEVER the choice of
the racing world to be the "steward" of the Indy 500.
And where DO you come up with this other stuff?!
Staging the Indy 500 was never up to CART, its component manufactures, or
Wall Street money. None of these parties were EVER stewards of the Indy 500,
nor were they ever going to be.
You have it all backwards. It was TG who wanted to be the steward of Indy
car racing, not just a race he inherited by random chance. He never did
anything to earn the right to be "steward" of the Indy 500.
"tjmc" <tj...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:uppvbtgb9c9vrnld5...@4ax.com...
Mark McCauley
nothing to devalue the race. It only took money out of IMS and Indianapolis.
And you ignore that George himself suddenly realized this himself when he
later shortened the Month of May because it was suddenly more expensive for
him to float the IRL.
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:9bSv6.15978$ue1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
Money and ego are two independent concepts.
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:9bSv6.15978$ue1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> TG ego? Please. He has too much money to give one sh*t about what you
Mark McCauley
George is in charge of the racing, not "race people". And that is the whole
fallacy of your argument. The IRL isn't about putting "race people" in
charge of anything. It's about putting Tony George in charge of everything.
Do you really believe, or do you think we're naive enough to believe that
Tony George is looking out for anyone other than himself?
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:9bSv6.15978$ue1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> The IRL is not always the best product, but it is accomplishing the goal
Mark McCauley
to - open-wheel NASCAR.
"Ken Plotkin" <kplo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:istvbt85pttqrncu1...@4ax.com...
Mark McCauley
I'd have the balls to do it too, knowing I was on the Forbes 400 and could
simply turn around put things right back where they were if I failed.
Yeah, some balls.
Oh yeah, not to mention he insured the survival of the speedway with NASCAR
and F1 races. Which I have no doubt that you and your ilk would be
criticizing George for if the "split" had never taken place.
Yeah, I'd put my balls on the line too if knew they couldn't be touched.
"Ken Plotkin" <kplo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:istvbt85pttqrncu1...@4ax.com...
> I think TG had enormous courage to put the 500 on the line to save
Ken Plotkin
wrote:
[snip]
>Oh yeah, not to mention he insured the survival of the speedway with NASCAR
>and F1 races. Which I have no doubt that you and your ilk would be
>criticizing George for if the "split" had never taken place.
[snip]
I have been to all of the BY 400s except one ('99, when a trip to Yurp
conflicted. In 2000, I told my Yurpean colleagues to move the
conference.) Including the first one in '94, before the split loomed.
And I'm not even that thrilled with NASCAR, since Cale doesn't drive
any more.
But I thought bringing in a support race to fill the summer was great.
Same with running F1, Posche and Ferrari races in the fall. Been to
that one, going again this year.
Two more chances to enjoy being at the Speedway. How can anyone -
with or without an ilk - complain about that?
Ken Plotkin
Mark McCauley
are that the big boys are coming to Indy, knowing that if the trend
continues they will be left out in the cold. They will be the "visitors".
"Tententhsinc" <tenten...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010326215828...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
Ken Plotkin
wrote:
>George is in charge of the racing, not "race people". And that is the whole
>fallacy of your argument. The IRL isn't about putting "race people" in
>charge of anything. It's about putting Tony George in charge of everything.
[snip]
Tony George *is* race people.
Son of a sprint car driver.
Grandson of a race track owner.
Raced himself, and still dabbles in it.
Spotter at Silver Crown races.
What more does it take to be race people?
Oh - he doesn't post here. That disqualifies him.
Ken Plotkin
SterlingLA
>>"This issue was simply the long term survival of the Indy 500."<<
Wow! I went to Indy for 30 years - right up to the split. I
NEVER sensed it was in trouble, saw empty seats, heard
people around me talking about how unqualified the fields
were, or complain about leased engines, etc. etc.
TV ratings were always good, and the untarnished race went
on year after year.
Yes, in the early 90's there was some grumbling about the
month of May being too expensive. So instead of CART
"pulling one" on Tony, he started the IRL and shortly
thereafter came to the same conclusion, shortening the
May activities considerably.
But if tmjc thinks Indy was in trouble then (enough to
create a whole new engine formula, and build a whole
new series that effectively challenged all of CART's
successes to date), then he must be sweating now -
not about CART, but the Indy 500 itself.
Since it became the IRL 500, TV ratings
have gone down significantly, the press almost always
makes some reference to "the split," (thus bringing its
credibility into question for anyone listening or reading).
Ken Plotkin says (elsewhere in this thread) that IMS would
survive one way or the other. Agreed. It is an event - bigger
than the racing itself. Mr. Plotkin also suggests that the
real issue is saving the connection from America's short
track driving talent to the Champ (re: "Indy") cars and Indy itself.
I submit this could've been addressed without throwing away so
much of Indy's credibility as a first class, and top of the line
open wheel race. (See my entry early in this thread).
It does all seem to come back to Tony's ego, using some legit
concerns (or issues) as his opening. His actions, though, have
been anything but altruistic, or genuinely constructive for
the 500, and open wheel racing in America.
SterlingLA (Sterling Smith)
tjmc
>>Subject: Re: What are the real issues?
>>From: tjmc tj...@enteract.com
>
>>Now that the issue has been successfully dealt with, feel glad, sit back
>>and enjoy the great race.
>
>Ganassi, Penske, now Michael. Anyone
>care to guess who's next? A chassis
>builder, perhaps an engine builder,
>or two?
Great days, bro. Gotta love all these Men Under the Spell Living Indy's
Magic Story (MUSLIMS) returning to Mecca, bringing all their wonderful
talents to the Speedway...this time unencumbered by the politics of
exclusivity, favoritism and privilege.
Tony won't make Mikey run around the pagoda seven times in a
counterclockwise fashion, will he?
CK1
I am not going to attack you.
Thanks for your reply.
Chris
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:9bSv6.15978$ue1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
He is a "race person" (and I use the term very liberally), not "race
people".
"Ken Plotkin" <kplo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kv50ct8ll643outae...@4ax.com...
Mark McCauley
"tjmc" <tj...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:7f41ctcsa9sj8kd2d...@4ax.com...
Mark McCauley
to?
"tjmc" <tj...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:7f41ctcsa9sj8kd2d...@4ax.com...
> talents to the Speedway...this time unencumbered by the politics of
> exclusivity, favoritism and privilege.
Mark McCauley
news:kv50ct8ll643outae...@4ax.com...
> Tony George *is* race people.
>
> Son of a sprint car driver.
Irrelevant.
> Grandson of a race track owner.
BINGO! GRANDSON of the IMS owner. Otherwise the "qualifications" you list
wouldn't even be discussed.
> Raced himself, and still dabbles in it.
This one is really rich. I have a friend who's wife races legends cars.
Still does. Doesn't make her qualified to be the czar of Indy car racing.
> Spotter at Silver Crown races.
Yeah, and Dave R's a spotter, too! :)
> What more does it take to be race people?
A LOT more to be a self-proclaimed savior of Indy car racing.
Is that the best you can come up with for King George?
Brian P. Sweeney
wrote:
>What are the real issues here? I understand that Tony George has a lot to
>do with this as an individual, and that is a key consideration. It strikes
>me that most IRL fans have a slavish devotion to Mr. George, the IRL, and
>the IMS.
Nope. Most of the Indy fans don't give a damn about the IRL. These fans
worship Indy, so they hate CART, since CART is above Indy and doesn't need
that race. They only love the IRL to the extent that it is anti-CART.
N. Richard Caldwell
Mark McCauley <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote:
>What "politics of exclusivity, favoritism and privilege" are you referring
>to?
You know:
"Tony inherited the speedway so he gets to do what it wants with it.
If you don't like it, you can leave. We don't care because Tony has
his own favorites and he'll pick and choose who he's going to channel
money to."
--
N. Richard Caldwell
Lucent Technologies
n...@lucent.com
Mark McCauley
to him, but I'm afraid it was wishful thinking on my part anyway.
"N. Richard Caldwell" <n...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:99qbb5$9...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
N. Richard Caldwell
BobT <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote:
>
>CART *was* attempting to devalue the '500. They were saying: "Look, Tony,
>it's very expensive to spend the entire month of May here. We have lots of
>other promoters that want to bring us in to race, you know. We certainly
>love the purse you offer, which is more than the rest of our series
>combined, and we'd like to keep coming back. But how about we unload
>Thursday, practice Friday, qualify Saturday, race Sunday and be gone by
>Monday?"
I don't believe for a second that any CART owner ever seriously
proposed a single weekend version of Indy. This is a tall tale that
has grown over the years. It used to be that the Indy faithful accused
CART of just wanting "shorten the Month of May" but for some reason
that just doesn't carry the weight it used to. I wonder why.
N. Richard Caldwell
Really Ken, you can normally do much better than this. A CART owner
with the same qualifications would be nothing more than a silver spoon
rich kid to most of the IRL faithful and you know it.
Go down the list of CART owners and tell me that most of them don't
have equal or better credentials as "race people."
Mark McCauley
What's really funny about the idea that CART somehow "devalued" the Indy 500
is that the poster has ignored the following facts.
Since George kicked CART out of Indy and started the IRL:
1996: CART wash-out wins.
1997: CART wash-out wins.
1998: CART wash-out wins, can't garner sponsorship in spite of winning the
so-called pinnacle of motorsports.
1999: IRL regular wins, moves to CART, doesn't bother to defend title.
2000: One-off driver, CART Champ, wins, doesn't bother to defend title.
In the last "devalued" Indy 500, winner moves to F1, wins World
Championship.
Not to mention that under George's stewardship:
1994: The "sanctity" of the alleged "hallowed ground" which is IMS is
tainted with the addition of a WC "stock car" race.
2000: A "Mickey Mouse" infield road course becomes part of the "hallowed
ground" for a foreign-based road-racing series to hold a race - the very
type of racing he despised CART for being a part of while racing at the Indy
500.
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:9bSv6.15978$ue1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
"Grandson of a race track owner."
Yeah, buddy, that's racing people....
"N. Richard Caldwell" <n...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:99qdo2$a...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
Grumpy
I guess most of you are blind.
The Cart/IRL battle of words is useless.
Even Robin Miller has seen that.
The real issue's have been rehashed so many times, its not even interesting
anymore. There is room for both series to progress, and regress.
Its easy to point fingers and lay blame. I guess some of you are just about
as focused on your hate as TG is on the IRL!
Grump
"N. Richard Caldwell" <n...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:99qbb5$9...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
Grumpy
month of May.
Grump
"N. Richard Caldwell" <n...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:99qcqt$b...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com...
Grumpy
You will not convince me.
Grump
"Brian P. Sweeney" <rascpro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rascproponents-...@max1-101.indy-timewarner.corecomm.net..
.
Mark McCauley
practice Friday, qualify Saturday, race Sunday and be gone by Monday?"
"Grumpy" <Co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:av3w6.349$o21....@eagle.america.net...
Mark McCauley
All of us don't believe the IMS and/or the Indy 500 is the be all and end
all of motorsports, so we don't all really go ga-ga over George doing what
any competent track owner would do - especially one with the financial
resources that he has.
"Grumpy" <Co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1u3w6.348$o21....@eagle.america.net...
Mark McCauley
Being blind is being wrapped up in the past. A past in which men like Foyt
and Andretti could race in several different series such as F1, Indy cars,
"stock cars", road racing, etc. A past in which the best drivers from all
over the world and from different types of racing came to Indy and literally
put their lives on the line to win what was then the greatest race in the
world. Those days, those ideals are gone. They are history, and so are the
days of the Indy 500 being anything other than just another race. They have
been gone for 30 years. No amount of marketing is going to change that. All
motorsports racing has changed. IMS is simply trying to save its glorious
past. If you can't get over the fact that the present is not the past, then
I suggest you spend more time in the IMS museum.
And right now I'm not even going to delve into the blindness that can't see
the hypocrisy of Tony George.
"Grumpy" <Co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1u3w6.348$o21....@eagle.america.net...
N. Richard Caldwell
Mark McCauley <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote:
>A "two week set up " isn't the same as "how about we unload Thursday,
>practice Friday, qualify Saturday, race Sunday and be gone by Monday?"
Exactly. In fact a two week set up doesn't sound very much different
from what Tony did to the event himself, now does it?
BobT
news:qNTv6.204466$bb.18...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> Now this is THE funniest part of this nonsense.
>
> George is in charge of the racing, not "race people". And that is the
whole
> fallacy of your argument. The IRL isn't about putting "race people" in
> charge of anything. It's about putting Tony George in charge of
everything.
> Tony George is looking out for anyone other than himself?
Thanks to Ken Plotkin for pointing out TG's credentials. Ken did it better
than I could.
I'll add one more thing, having the Speedway in his family for fifty years
also qualifies him as "race people".
BobT
BobT
[snip]
> Go down the list of CART owners and tell me that most of them don't
> have equal or better credentials as "race people."
No argument whatsoever. But that doesn't change my basic point.
Whether Mark (or you) believe it, I do think that TG has more interest in
the long term survival of Indycar racing than, say, Green, Rahal, Ganassi,
Newman, Haas, etc. I will leave Penske out of that mix for the time being.
BobT
BobT
> Bob,
>
> I am not going to attack you.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Chris
Thank you for not being the troll I suspected your message might be.
Apologies for my presumptions.
To be sure, I'm not happy about what's happened to Indycar racing. I've
watched the '500 most of my life, and always wanted to go. Then as luck
would have it I married a woman who's been going to the '500 for most of her
life. (I joke with her that her '500 tickets were the reason I married
her.)
She took me to my first '500... in 1995 (first year of the split). That
sucked bigtime.
But I just don't see CART as the be-all and end-all of open wheel racing,
and I just don't see Tony George as the antichrist. TG apparently has some
strong opinions, and put his money where is mouth was. Agree or disagree, I
think that has to be respected. That I happen to agree with some of his
opinions makes it easier for me.
BobT
BobT
There were short-term exigencies (sp?) that made that make sense at the
time. Do you believe this was intended to be a permanent change? If so,
based on what?
There's some saying that goes something like 'sometimes you have to take one
step back to take two steps forward'. You, Mark and some others appear to
be focussing on the one step back, and disregarding the possibilities of two
steps forward.
I've noticed in this thread that everybody's questioned my reasoning and
opinions, but nobody's questioned my basic conclusion.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the split either (see my response to CK1's
response to me). But I do believe that something had to give, TG made that
'give' happen, and (so far) time seems to be bearing out TG's view. And by
the way, there's more than one CART owner who thinks that, too.
BobT
BobT
> Guess what?
>
> All of us don't believe the IMS and/or the Indy 500 is the be all and end
> all of motorsports, so we don't all really go ga-ga over George doing what
> any competent track owner would do - especially one with the financial
> resources that he has.
You've devoted an awful lot of time to this thread for someone who claims
not to care.
BobT
> Bob, you ignore the fact that shortening the Month of May did absolutely
> nothing to devalue the race. It only took money out of IMS and
Indianapolis.
And you're ignoring one fact: tradition.
> And you ignore that George himself suddenly realized this himself when he
> later shortened the Month of May because it was suddenly more expensive
for
> him to float the IRL.
Short term change due to short term conditions.
BRAVO52
What balls? It is evident from your post you don't have any.
Bravo
Darwin is alive and well.
Grumpy
I dont either, I am not at the feet of TG, nor do I think he did the IRL
right, but he has increased the revenue of the track, opened it to the
premiere racing series in this country, Nascar and the world, F-1.
The improvements to the faculty are 1st class. He has done a great job
there.
That cannot be denied.
If you think the above statement makes me ga ga over TG personally, well,
you are quite wrong.
Grump
"Mark McCauley" <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote in message
news:IS3w6.12203$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Grumpy
that.....history, and while I enjoy the past memories, I am not so foolish
to think the future is the past, but important lessons are there.
My comment about being blind, was referring to the improvements to the
track, and the increase in income there.
Mark, I misjudged you, my mistake.
I will not make that mistake again.
Grump
"Mark McCauley" <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote in message
news:Q14w6.12204$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
tjmc
>tjmc writes:
>>>"This issue was simply the long term survival of the Indy 500."<<
>Wow! I went to Indy for 30 years - right up to the split.
>TV ratings were always good, and the untarnished race went
>on year after year.
Well I'm old enough to remember when folks would swear no one could ever
break IBM's near monopoly position in computers...or that International
Harvester would always lead in farm equipment...when TWA was the giant
of it's industry...and the Japanese would never be able to seriously
challenge America's big-3 auto makers.
Here's where I seriously disagree with my good friend Ken Plotkin. He
and others seem to think the Indy 500 would have kept its preeminence on
tradition and momentum alone. I don't think anything is farther from
the truth. Great institutions get great and stay great only through the
hard work, constant vigilance and visionary talents of their leadership.
TGFTG.
Grumpy
This is another deal that was shot back and forth between the pro and con of
the open wheel groups, and is used by both sides when convenient.
You could be original.
Grump
"N. Richard Caldwell" <n...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:99qjdo$a...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
Brian P. Sweeney
Richard Caldwell) wrote:
>In article <%e1w6.12088$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
>Mark McCauley <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote:
>>What "politics of exclusivity, favoritism and privilege" are you referring
>>to?
>
>You know:
>"Tony inherited the speedway so he gets to do what it wants with it.
>If you don't like it, you can leave. We don't care because Tony has
>his own favorites and he'll pick and choose who he's going to channel
>money to."
No kidding. It's a sad state of affairs when the track owner gets to write
the rule book all the while subsidizing his own teams.
These are some dark days for IMS.
N. Richard Caldwell
Grumpy <Co...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>N. Richard,
>This is another deal that was shot back and forth between the pro and con of
>the open wheel groups, and is used by both sides when convenient.
>
>You could be original.
Sorry, I know it's difficult for you guys to accept that you can
never win that hand. You would do better to point it out to the
person who played the "they wanted to shorten the Month of May" card
in the first place.
N. Richard Caldwell
BobT <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote:
>There's some saying that goes something like 'sometimes you have to take one
>step back to take two steps forward'. You, Mark and some others appear to
>be focussing on the one step back, and disregarding the possibilities of two
>steps forward.
I never argued whether shortening the Month of May was a good thing or bad.
In fact I think a two week schedule would maximize the benefit of the event
without unnecessary expense.
I was making two points. First, that no team owner has ever seriously
argued that a one weekend event at Indy was a good idea. And second
that Tony George has been hypocritical on his position regarding
reducing the time spent at the Speedway in May. When it would have
benefited the sport by reducing costs for CART owners he was absolutely
against it. When it benefited him by helping his own series he was for
it.
Grumpy
Grump
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:R0bw6.1871$Uw.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
survival of Indy car racing, there was nothing wrong with it until George
butted in.
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:THaw6.1814$Uw.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
Tony had to have his way?
What "view" of TG's being born out?
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:R0bw6.1871$Uw.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:U9bw6.1909$Uw.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
"It's bad for you to do it for your reasons, it's O.K. to do it for my
reasons."
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:U9bw6.1909$Uw.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:Ibbw6.1914$Uw.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
"BRAVO52" <bra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010327215527...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
Mark McCauley
said/implied he didn't do anything that was wonderful. He only did what any
competent track owner with the kind of financial resources he and IMS has
should do.
"Grumpy" <Co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:URkw6.7$__1....@eagle.america.net...
Mark McCauley
The IRL and the Indy 5000 is what it is today because of what the Indy 500
was yesterday, not because of vision or leadership from TG.
Where is George's vision and leadership for the other tracks that his series
can't fill to 50% capacity?
You are a real card my friend. Hilarious...
"tjmc" <tj...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:m8m3ctgtb1810pcff...@4ax.com...
Brian P. Sweeney
McCauley" <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote:
> You must think us to be incredibly naive to believe that spiel.
>
> The IRL and the Indy 5000 is what it is today because of what the Indy 500
> was yesterday, not because of vision or leadership from TG.
>
> Where is George's vision and leadership for the other tracks that his series
> can't fill to 50% capacity?
>
> You are a real card my friend. Hilarious...
And he's getting crazier all the time.
Brian P. Sweeney
wrote:
> Well I'm old enough to remember when folks would swear no one could ever
> break IBM's near monopoly position in computers...or that International
> Harvester would always lead in farm equipment...when TWA was the giant
> of it's industry...and the Japanese would never be able to seriously
> challenge America's big-3 auto makers.
>
> Here's where I seriously disagree with my good friend Ken Plotkin. He
> and others seem to think the Indy 500 would have kept its preeminence on
> tradition and momentum alone. I don't think anything is farther from
> the truth. Great institutions get great and stay great only through the
> hard work, constant vigilance and visionary talents of their leadership.
> TGFTG.
Nobody liked New Coke, dummy.
Brian P. Sweeney
<kplo...@nospam.net> wrote:
> CART evolved from that. Very cool series - good racing, good drivers,
> etc. But they hijacked the Championship Trail. The top league of US
> Open Wheel was gone.
Thank God.
>
> When was the last time a kid from Pennsylvania got a shot at the big
> time on the basis of winning three midget features in one weekend?
That should never have happened, and I hope it never happens again. That's
akin to saying: when was the last time a kid from Wisconsin got a shot at
CART on the basis of being able to hit a high fastball? The skills in
midgets and baseball are equally irrelevant to CART.
> I think TG had enormous courage to put the 500 on the line to save
> American racing. Not many track owners would have the balls to risk a
> sure, comfortable thing for the greater good.
>
> Ken Plotkin
This last paragraph is insanity, unleashed.
Brian P. Sweeney
(BRAVO52) wrote:
> >Yeah, I'd put my balls on the line too if knew they couldn't be touched.
>
> What balls? It is evident from your post you don't have any.
>
> Bravo
You're a hick. Get lost.
Mark McCauley
"Brian P. Sweeney" <rascpro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rascproponents-...@max2-19.indy-timewarner.corecomm.net...
Brian P. Sweeney
McCauley" <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote:
> That's one of the silliest response I've seen you post yet.
If you visit the Nascar forum, that response is par.
Mark McCauley
What's really sad is that TG didn't really put the Indy 500 on the line, he
put Indy car racing on the line to save HIS greater good.
"Brian P. Sweeney" <rascpro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rascproponents-...@max2-19.indy-timewarner.corecomm.net...
In article <istvbt85pttqrncu1...@4ax.com>, Ken Plotkin
Grumpy
I hope you understand that I am NOT in agreement with the way he has handled
the IRL.
Grump
"Mark McCauley" <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote in message
news:2Iow6.12860$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Mark McCauley
Mark McCauley
"Grumpy" <Co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bGqw6.170$__1....@eagle.america.net...
BobT
> Rationalize it anyway you want, just like the pro-lifers do.
>
> "It's bad for you to do it for your reasons, it's O.K. to do it for my
> reasons."
Maybe RASI needs a BoP like AFU.
BobT
[snip]
> Where is George's vision and leadership for the other tracks that his
series
> can't fill to 50% capacity?
Looked at any CART crowds lately? They aren't exactly packing the place
either. And no, I won't get into p*ssing contests about numbers, the group
has been bored enough with that already. CART attendance is down, CART TV
ratings are down.
ra300z
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:43:29 -0500, "CK1" <ck11...@ncr.com> wrote:
>
>[snipped the fine May whine--in spite of it being in season]
>
>>So, what are the issues:
>
>>Turbo vs. Normally Aspirated
>>Owners vs. Track People
>>Engine Lease vs. Purchase
>>Money vs. Spec Series
>>Exposure vs. Down Home Americana
>>Tony George & Ego vs. CART
>
>None of the above...though number two comes close.
>
>This issue was simply the long term survival of the Indy 500.
Yeah the Indy 500 was in big trouble in 1995!
:>
>When someone is given such an obligation, however he may have been given
>it, there are certain responsibilities. Leaving its fate almost
>entirely to an organization who has difficulty staging its own events,
There were 100,000 at Mexico--an inaugural event. There will probably
be 15,000 people at Homestead this weekend.
BobT
[snip]
> What's really sad is that TG didn't really put the Indy 500 on the line,
he
> put Indy car racing on the line to save HIS greater good.
You know, Mark, I think this is the basic problem boiled down to it's
essence.
TG doesn't have the power to "put Indy car racing on the line". He owns
exactly *one* racetrack in a time where racetracks have been built
everywhere (Gateway, Fontana, Colorado, Ft. Worth, Kentucky, Chicago, etc.).
It isn't as though TG could singlehandedly put CART out of business by
withholding the Speedway.
He most certainly put the '500 on the line. If he and the IRL are as bad as
you say, the public would have voted with it's feet and dollars. Other than
some knee cartilage that kept me away from the 2000 race, I've been to every
'post-split' '500. I guarantee you there were no empty seats.
You absolutely refuse to acknowledge (note, I didn't say agree, simply
acknowledge) that: TG may have had a legitimate difference of opinion about
the direction CART was taking and responded in the way that *any*
businessman would respond under the circumstances. Instead, you have to
apply the basest, most selfish motivations to everything TG's done -
TG=antichrist.
I'm not trying to talk you into the concept that the split is a good thing.
*I* don't think it's a good thing. I just think there were good reasons why
it happened, and it may well turn out be a good thing in the long run.
Degrelle44
the place either. And no, I won't get into p*ssing contests about numbers, the
group
has been bored enough with that already. CART attendance is down, CART TV
ratings are down.<<
CART oval attendance is awful. So what does that tell you? It tells me that
North America cannot support two open-wheel series. It needs one. One that is
strong, united, well-marketed, with the best drivers it can afford. We had
that in 1995. We haven't had it since.
Mark McCauley
three days. And now Mexico City and Cancun want a CART race.
?!
Yeah,
Houston Sold-out
Monterrey Sold-out
Long Beach Sold-out
Toronto Sold-out
Cleveland Sold-out
Germany Sold-out
England Sold-out
Etc.
The ONLY races that don't sell-out are U.S. OVALS!
The very types of races that TG, with all his wisdom and leadership, says
the fans want.
You guys getter more absurd with each and every post.
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:AAvw6.5962$aP5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Mark McCauley" <sm...@hawkpci.net> wrote in message
> news:_1qw6.12878$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> Looked at any CART crowds lately? They aren't exactly packing the place
BRAVO52
>
Aaaaa......your a real smart one Mr Sweeney. Hick? What gave that away? Was
it my accent? Tell me please!
Darwin is alive and well.
Mark McCauley
Hello Bob! Anybody home?
TG owns the IRL. You know, that other Indy car series that is at the root of
the so-called "split". Forgotten about it already?
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:Vaww6.6111$aP5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark McCauley
And I cannot believe for the life of me that you can't see that the public
HAS voted with its feet and dollars. They don't attend IRL races other than
the Indy 500. And please don't try to tell me the public cares about the
difference in CART and IRL at Indy.
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:Vaww6.6111$aP5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> He most certainly put the '500 on the line. If he and the IRL are as bad
Degrelle44
well turn out be a good thing in the long run.<<
What do you define as the "long run"? We're into the SIXTH year of this mess
and certainly nothing good has happened yet. And I certainly do not see
anything good happening this year. The IRL is just as bad as it ever was. It
still does not feature a single quality driver and its teams continue to
struggle with sponsorship, forcing them to miss races. (Look for Simon to park
Gregoire's car soon). Attendance at Phoenix was awful and will no doubt be
just as bad at Homestead. (If CART couldn't attract a decent crowd there,
don't expect the IRL to do it). And to top it all off, Northern Light, the
series sponsor that so many IRLers embraced with such enthusiasm, is toast...
Are all the good things destined to occur for my grandchildren -- when I'm
gumming oatmeal at the old folk's home?
Brian P. Sweeney
(BRAVO52) wrote:
>>You're a hick. Get lost.
>>
>
>Aaaaa......your a real smart one Mr Sweeney. Hick? What gave that away? Was
>it my accent? Tell me please!
If you insist. Applying the rules from the Right and Ancient Usenet cabal,
the arrangement of your words yielded the the following incantation: "Go,
Dale."
Huw Morris
> I never argued whether shortening the Month of May was a good thing or bad.
> In fact I think a two week schedule would maximize the benefit of the event
> without unnecessary expense.
OK, this sounds like an ignorant question from a dumb Brit...but why the
hell does Indy take a whole month? What the fuck are they doing there?
Also, could someone explain what the 26/8 rule (or whatever) is?
Huw
SterlingLA
>>Here's where I seriously disagree with my good friend Ken Plotkin. He
and others seem to think the Indy 500 would have kept its preeminence on
tradition and momentum alone. I don't think anything is farther from
the truth. Great institutions get great and stay great only through the
hard work, constant vigilance and visionary talents of their leadership.
TGFTG. <<
And great institutions can be undermined,
erode, lose their preeminence with bad management, short sighted (or even
paranoid) "solutions," to their perceived problems.
The implication that so many of you IRL fans
present, is that CART wanted to destroy Indy. I believe the reality was (and
is,
allowing for wishful thinking) that Indy gave
them the high visibility venue/event, and they gave Indy first class teams,
talent, and a
series to keep some of that visibility alive the other eleven months.
And I think on all three counts, they
did that far(!!!) more successfully than the
IRL does. So much for "visionary talents"
at the Speedway.
SterlingLA (Sterling Smith)
Don7031
>OK, this sounds like an ignorant question from a dumb Brit...but why the
>hell does Indy take a whole month? What the fuck are they doing there?
>Also, could someone explain what the 26/8 rule (or whatever) is?
Why do you Brits still pay homage to your queen?
As for the 25/8 rule. When the IRL was formed, Tony George envisioned it as
complementary series to CART. As a racer he was operating under the theory
that racers race. So he was expecting to field the additional non-CART
sanctioned events with CART teams and teams just interested in running ovals in
preparation for Indy which was to be the final event for their limited schedule
championship. The idea was that as CART continued their transition abroad and
to the more lucrative road & street races, the IRL would pick up the discarded
domestic ovals. Tony George was naively expecting to work hand in hand with
CART. He gets an oval based series to ensure the future of the 500 and CART
has their path to being F1-lite greased. CART of course didn't quite see it
that way. What they saw was a golden opportunity to finish what they started
in 78 by finally getting the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to kowtow to them.
Now we come to the series of events which led to the 25/8 rule. At the behest
of CART teams Tony George agrees to require the then current 95 CART specs for
the upcoming 96 IRL season. To go along with the USAC Indy event, two waning
CART events become IRL events and two new tracks are added in such a manner as
to not conflict with any previously scheduled CART events. Then CART goes on
the offensive. First a rules change to the equipment specs. Second, CART
juggles its schedule to create conflicts with the IRL events. Mix in CART
conspiring with equipment suppliers to deny potential IRL teams access and you
have an attempt to squash the nascent IRL before a wheel is turned. The IRL's
response to this attack was the 25/8 rule where the top 25 in IRL points were
guaranteed a starting spot in the 500. Thus providing a significant carrot to
race in the other IRL events. However, long time racer Roger Penske went to
Tony George and worked out a deal expanding the starting field to 42 cars and
expanding the purse. Which meant a handful of CART regulars would have missed
the race. But the business men on the CART board chose instead to expand
CART's boycott to include the 500 by scheduling yet another conflicting event.
In a few years the only difference between Tony George's vision of a peaceful
coexistence from the get go and CART's initial hostile one will be that there
are more ovals available to the IRL from the antagonistic path.
Mark McCauley
...and you guys give Degrelle a hard time for using "heroes of the short
track"...
"Don7031" <don...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010329111533...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
John Clarke
Huw Morris <huw.m...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>"N. Richard Caldwell" wrote:
>
>> I never argued whether shortening the Month of May was a good thing or bad.
>> In fact I think a two week schedule would maximize the benefit of the event
>> without unnecessary expense.
>
>OK, this sounds like an ignorant question from a dumb Brit...but why the
>hell does Indy take a whole month?
Because they used to be able to sell tickets for that long. Practices,
multiple qualifying sessions, more practices, parades, parties. Now
that nobody shows up and the teams can't afford to practice for weeks
ahead of the race, they've cut down on the pre-race practice time
and shrunk the month down to a few weeks, just like CART owners wanted.
>Also, could someone explain what the 26/8 rule (or whatever) is?
The 25/8 rule was instituted by Tony George because he knew that the
teams that would support the IRL the rest of the year would get their
collective asses kicked by the professional teams and drivers in CART.
So he reserved 25 of the starting spots in the Indy 500 for teams that
ran in the rest of his series, meaning that CART had only eight spots
to fight over. CART said "I think not" and nobody showed up.
Tony got rid of the rule (the damage was done) and we are now stuck
watching a bunch of amateurs destroy the jewel in the open wheel crown.
John
Bob Lorenzini
>
>As for the 25/8 rule. When the IRL was formed, Tony George envisioned it as
>complementary series to CART.
TG stated he did not expect CART to survive the split. Keep spinning.
Bob
Mark McCauley
"BobT" <x...@screw.the.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:AAvw6.5962$aP5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Don7031
>Huw, this explanation is revisionist history...
The floor's yours. Please illuminate us on what I've revised. And just to
refresh your memory, here is Tony George's open letter to the Star from 1995.
October 24, 1995
The IRL and the '500' Future To The Editor The Indianapolis Star The Indy
Racing League and the '500' future
by Anton Hulman George / Indianapolis Motor Speedway President
It is my hope to provide an understanding of the purpose and motivation behind
the formation of the Indy Racing League. There is much controversy in this
matter, expressed as anxiety and even animosity by certain members of the Indy
racing community, several fans, and more than one journalist.
In time, I hope the current wounds are healed and that these disagreements
ultimately provide for clearer and stronger relationships throughout our sport.
Later, I'll get into specific reasons why I believe so strongly in the
formation of this league.
Of immediate concern, though, is the unsettling rhetoric of threats, boycotts
and an alternate race on May 26 as leveled by Championship Auto Racing Teams
(CART) against both the Indianapolis 500 and the IRL. Other than to once again
reiterate our almost daily, sincere invitation to the racing community that we
consider all racers friends and that IRL events and the "500" are open to any
legitimate team with a legal car and qualified driver, I cannot say how this
will all turn out.
What I can say, very sincerely, is that any and all teams that have competed in
past "500s," many of them CART franchisees, are 100 percent welcome to enter
and compete in any of our IRL events. New entrants are welcome too.
That said, I'm going to specifically address just a single, highly inaccurate
word that has recently surfaced as CART's focal buzzword to describe its
self-imposed predicament regarding the "500." The word is "lockout."
Let's make this clear: There is no lockout. What I believe to be the case is
that CART, following an effort to eliminate the IRL and gain control of the
Indianapolis 500, is in the uncomfortable position of having created deliberate
and unnecessary conflicts from which it will not extricate itself.
Those conflicts surfaced with CART's announcements of technical specifications
for its 1996 cars and of its 1996 schedule, both of which occurred well after
the corresponding IRL information had been made public and put in place for our
inaugural season.
Probably 90 percent or more of the discussion (and cussing) has been aimed at
the IRL's 75 percent-of-the-field qualifying incentive, the one that
conditionally guarantees 25 spots in the Indianapolis 500 lineup to IRL
competitors. Although we have not changed any of the four-day, speed-seeded
qualifying format for the "500" with the fastest first-day qualifier, whoever
it is, still on the pole, let me explain where the new qualifying criteria --
which only affects who gets bumped -- came from.
The IRL qualifying incentives, bridging across different events, provide a new
and interesting dimension to how starting fields are established because they
provide a hard, venue-to-venue continuity. There is a positive side in terms of
publicity and race-to-race interdependency to build the league's identity. But
the down side is that if the "500" were to be a true league member, then the
rule would have to apply to the 33-car Indy field as well. We were on the fence
leaning away from that one until the middle of June.
That was when CART announced its 1996 schedule. The components of our modest,
five-race IRL schedule had been announced in January, April and late May, and
each announcement was accompanied by an IRL promise not to create conflict with
what we understood would be CART's schedule. We obviously hoped they would
enter our races.
On June 10, CART announced its 15-race 1996 schedule. Ultimately, four of its
dates appeared to us to have been put deliberately in conflict with three
important IRL dates: CART's Brazil and Australia races were placed one week
before and one week after the IRL's announced Phoenix date of March 24, 1996;
CART's Nazareth race was listed on April 28 against USAC's important Indy
Rookie Orientation Program; and inexplicably, CART chose to schedule Elkhart
Lake directly opposite the IRL's Aug. 18 New Hampshire race.
Travel logistics virtually eliminate the possibility of any team running
Brazil, Phoenix and Australia on consecutive weekends. While "ROP" (as USAC's
rookie program is called) is not a highly publicized event, it is nonetheless
well known in racing circles that it occurs a week before opening day at
Indianapolis, when the final preparations to the race track have been
completed. All CART could say about its Elkhart Lake date was that it had
always raced on that date (it hasn't) and besides, CART stated, it hadn't made
any promises that it wouldn't conflict.
What do you do if you are in our shoes? CART had obviously made a perfectly
legal, free-market competition move to prevent its teams from participating in
the opportunities presented by the IRL. At that point it became incumbent on us
to respond in kind, and we did it with a carrot instead of a stick.
On July 3, we announced $12 million in prize money for the five-race series,
and qualifying criteria weighted toward teams that participate in IRL events.
In August, we weighted our season championship points system very heavily
toward consistent IRL participation. Plus we already had an agreement in place
with ABC Sports for live television coverage of all five IRL races.
These are strong, attractive incentives for open participation that in no way
imply a lockout. Then as now, the IRL is designed for open inclusion of any and
all competitors. It is unfortunate CART is forcing its members to choose.
Then there is the equipment question. On Oct. 11, a CART car owner was quoted
in The Star sports section about the necessity for the IRL to adopt '96 CART
equipment rules or else CART will be unable to compete in next year's
Indianapolis 500. That is a true statement, sort of. The problem resulted from
CART's decision last May to institute sweeping changes in its own '96 chassis
specifications that it knew when it made them would effectively eliminate its
cars from competing in the 1996 "500."
That was CART's decision, not ours, and I firmly believe the decision was
motivated by CART's desire to stifle the development of the IRL by creating the
burden on its members of redundant, expensive equipment.
It was, in my view, another free-market competition decision. I respect CART's
right to compete against the IRL, although it was certainly not our original
intent to compete against them. We wanted to coexist and not force anyone to
choose sides. That is why in early March the IRL rescinded its own proposed
sweeping changes in both chassis and engine specifications.
At that time, CART told us they felt the IRL's proposed technical changes --
which we had announced in 1994 -- would create hardship because they were too
late for 1996 production and too expensive for teams because all new equipment
would be required. We did not entirely agree with those assessments, but in the
interest of removing obstacles to agreement, the IRL announced March 10 that
for 1996 all applicable 1995 USAC and CART specifications would be observed. It
was purely a move of appeasement on our part.
Imagine our surprise when two months later, in mid-May, CART adopted changes in
chassis specifications that were very close to what the IRL had rescinded in
the interest of keeping peace in the family. While technical and safety
improvements are the backbone of auto racing, it was obvious to me that CART's
chassis change was motivated less by performance than by its political desire
to prevent the IRL from conducting races in 1996. I was very disappointed by
this, but it was not of our doing and we will stick to the commitments we made
for 1996 rules.
Chassis incompatibility and schedule conflicts: CART created both these
problems after the IRL was on record as sincerely having tried to avoid them.
The purpose of the IRL is to provide growth, stability and opportunity for
open-wheel, oval track racing. That mission is certainly not intended to harm
or control CART.
In fact, it has nothing to do with CART. We simply do not want the Indianapolis
500 to be controlled by an outside group that does not have as its most
important goal the future of Indianapolis type oval track racing. Not to
mention a group that is based out of state and is far removed from the
significance of the "500" in this community.
It is often said that I am motivated by power and greed in forming the IRL. It
certainly is not greed, because this is a very intense financial commitment for
us to build a race track in Florida and establish proper league staffing and
resources. The monetary payback, if there is any, will be over the long haul.
On the subject of power, my desire is not now and never has been control of
CART, IndyCar or the entire series of whatever cars run in the Indianapolis
500. The payback on that side is simply a peace of mind that comes from
maintaining the sovereignty of this wonderful event.
Far from wanting to run the sport, I'd love to see even the IRL develop an
autonomy. There is much I would like to do in my life, but I'll be unable to
enjoy any of it if the "500" is not secure.
That's why the Indy Racing League was formed. I felt the long-term protection
of the "500" depended on a solid series of top level open-wheel, oval track
races. To that end, this league was created because CART provided no long-term
guarantees to the "500" or to oval track racing. Nor has CART as an
organization exhibited long-term stability, with four different board voting
structures and four different chief executives just in the short five years
I've been president of the Speedway.
The Indianapolis 500 will not be controlled by CART. They are welcome to join
us as competitors, but not to impose their will or their governing structure on
the Speedway.
Our timing in all of this was pretty good. The threat I feared might someday
materialize -- a CART sanction in a power move against the Speedway -- is
evidently upon us. Although you can argue that we brought it on ourselves this
time, I am convinced it would have happened over some other issue at some other
time. This time, though, we were in the middle of exercising some very
important American ideals -- those of free competition, open markets and
entrepreneurship. We are in a position of strength, and we are steadfastly in a
position to defend the future of the "500" with the Indy Racing League.
It breaks my heart when I see CART drivers quoted as saying the "500" is "just
another race," and I can't count the number of CART owners who have stated on
various occasions that they would prefer to emasculate the month of May, and
instead re-make the greatest automobile race meeting in the world into a
single-weekend event. I would be ashamed if we let that happen here. It would
be an incalculable loss for both the world of racing and the local community.
Tententhsinc
>From: "Mark McCauley"
>The ONLY races that don't sell-out are U.S. OVALS!
These CART races you've pointed out
rarely attract more fans than a typical
"Taste of the Town" block party.
Take away the race cars at Long Beach
and not that many people would notice.
It would still attract the same size
crowd.
Face it, Mark, some of us just want to
see racing, something CART rarely
provides these days.
If you get off on the glamour and glitter
element, fine.
Some of us want to see an automobile race.
Tententhsinc
>From: "Mark McCauley"
>Of course the thing is that regardless of who has what interest in the
>survival of Indy car racing, there was nothing wrong with it until George
>butted in.
I dunno, there are too many people
staring at me while I dine at the
hospitality coaches. They should
be watching Indy Lights practice
instead of watching me eat.
(I make sure I eat where there's a
big screen TV showing Lights practice)
BobT
[completely useless stuff snipped]
(shaking head) Mark, you don't see it because you don't want to. Fine.
Tententhsinc
>now stuck
>watching a bunch of amateurs destroy the jewel in the open wheel crown.
Ouch, you mean the CART Champion
finished 18th at Phoenix against a bunch of
amateurs.
Sad.
Especially when the "champ" took out
two other cars attempting to make it into
the pits.
Champ. hehehehehe.
Tententhsinc
>Hello Bob! Anybody home?
Sssshhhhh. Pretend like no one's home.
Tententhsinc
>There were 100,000 at Mexico--an inaugural event. There will probably
>be 15,000 people at Homestead this weekend.
Macy's gets big numbers too.
Me? I'll be at the race next weekend.
Joe's Stone Crab and South Beach can wait until the racing is over.
Degrelle44
something CART rarely provides these days. If you get off on the glamour and
glitter
element, fine. Some of us want to see an automobile race.<<
Yep, that's the IRL attitude. Don't make no difference a 'tall who the drivers
are. Middle-aged amateur, Bobby Regester, is just as entertaining to IRLers as
Jimmy Vasser or Michael Andretti or Gil de Ferran.