|
That's a decent field for Lights IMO.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It was also, if you believe Beast, funded very little by MB. Ilmor and Penske started it with no manufacturer at all and MB jumped in quite late. They want the 1960s, and that's not coming back. Even if they brought back stupid-rear end roadsters like the old-timers always want, that misses the point of why the sport was popular in the first place- it was about pushing the envelope, and if you're using old technology, you aren't pushing the envelope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Is there any major series that isn't just spec racers with old tech?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
WEC, probably? F1's current powertrain rules are insanely strict but I wouldn't call the cars spec either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:WEC, probably? F1's current powertrain rules are insanely strict but I wouldn't call the cars spec either. i'm not sure you can call the F1 engines spec when one manufacturer is 50hp ahead of the others
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Even F1/WEC basically has 'there are only so many ways to slice an apple' effect going on. The series puts development in a box and we end up with all the cars being the same, because thats the best way to go fast. I guess all the indy oldtimers want what all oldtimers seem to want: everyone to forget everything they've learned for the last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
I wouldn't call them spec, but they are really restricted in how they can be developed. I really think this kind of thing is counter-productive if you want to reduce costs, but hey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I wouldn't call them spec, but they are really restricted in how they can be developed. I really think this kind of thing is counter-productive if you want to reduce costs, but hey. well that's true. but indycar and nascar have the exact same problems. there's always going to be some wiggle room, no matter how spec a series is. and the less development you can do, the more money it will take to extract the maximum amount of performance advantage. the poor teams in indycar can challenge for wins, which is obviously much better, but they can't challenge for titles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I think race series overall are too concerned that a lack of parity will kill interest in the sport. I don't think this is supported historically at all. A race with 1 car on the lead lap can be better than one with 20.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Oh hi, Uncle Bobby. goddamnit why'd I have to channel him e- gently caress and I agree with him, too jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I think race series overall are too concerned that a lack of parity will kill interest in the sport. I don't think this is supported historically at all. A race with 1 car on the lead lap can be better than one with 20. Well, a race with 1 car on the lead lap hurts my interest in the race for sure... That said, to your point, theres a whole category of racefans that are in it for the engineering side and dont really care about the actual racing. Racing is basically an excuse to spend a lot of money on a rolling carshow, for them. I think they are loving insane, but there certainly seems to be fair amount of them based on the really lovely tryhard comments I see on Racer and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
I'm absolutely in it for the engineering. e- also yeah Bobby is nuts thinking you can open the rules and cut costs, that's impossible. I've said stock blocks and limit testing and wind tunnel time, but let the chassis guys get creative, or conversely open it up and let people spend a poo poo ton, either/or works for me spec cars are rear end, though, and contrary to what Indy should be Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Well, a race with 1 car on the lead lap hurts my interest in the race for sure... Racing was more popular back in the days of "bad racing", though. Even 90s NASCAR has much less parity compared to nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
The interest in racing back then was who could make their poo poo hot car run 11/10ths for 500 miles They could make it the Indy 1000 and half the cars would still finish nowadays, that's bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I think race series overall are too concerned that a lack of parity will kill interest in the sport. I don't think this is supported historically at all. A race with 1 car on the lead lap can be better than one with 20. right, exactly. you don't need 10 cars fighting for the win, you just need two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
like whenever the 500 ends with eight cars nose to tail battling to see who can be second to the white flag i think "wow what a great test of driver skill"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
I've posted this before as an example but I consider this to be one of my favorite races ever run, and look at the distances between cars. http://www.racing-reference.info/race/1989-03/R
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Racing was more popular back in the days of "bad racing", though. Even 90s NASCAR has much less parity compared to nowadays. I think that has way more to do with the times than it does with anything. I mean, the crowds didnt exactly flood out to support ALMS when it was running a more open spec. be nice wicka posted:like whenever the 500 ends with eight cars nose to tail battling to see who can be second to the white flag i think "wow what a great test of driver skill" Same but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I think that has way more to do with the times than it does with anything. I mean, the crowds didnt exactly flood out to support ALMS when it was running a more open spec. pit walls
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:pit walls Same but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
mods rename me to mr gorbachev tear down this pit wall
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I think that has way more to do with the times than it does with anything. but racing is less popular now, and there's more parity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Racing is less popular regardless of the parity, though. Even bad series with lots of blowout races get bad ratings, there are plenty of bad ratings to go around for everyone!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Regulations also try to prevent pieces of car from slicing up spectators and bringing lawsuits down on the series. Any goon these days can get a 600hp engine from a manufacturer that will last tens of thousands of miles. Open formula these days is either a dangerous situation or a technical cap where millions of dollars are spent for very tiny advantages because everything is already known.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
You can have "parity" if you want, the end result is usually the same; the best prepared and well-funded teams end up winning everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:You can have "parity" if you want, the end result is usually the same; the best prepared and well-funded teams end up winning everything. Same. The way Indycar and NASCAR is now it's always the ultra rich teams winning. I'd rather it be like in the 80s when some podunks from Georgia can set the NASCAR record and whenever the hell that was for Indycar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:You can have "parity" if you want, the end result is usually the same; the best prepared and well-funded teams end up winning everything. F1 is a good example, the laptimes from first-to-last are probably closer than they've ever been and the last two seasons have been some of the most comprehensively dominant in history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Since 2012, Indycar has been less equal (the Chevrolets have had a distinct edge) but the racing much better. Compare with 2011.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:You can have "parity" if you want, the end result is usually the same; the best prepared and well-funded teams end up winning everything. That's probably the best counter argument to non-feeder spec series, but its mostly when you completely take out engineering that you end up there. Great example is the ChampCar years where even the shocks were stock by the end and Bourdais winning everything. Right now, IndyCar is at an incredible high point for competitiveness though and I've really liked the balance. 7 teams have won races both of the last two years, in 18-19 race seasons. Thats insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:F1 is a good example, the laptimes from first-to-last are probably closer than they've ever been and the last two seasons have been some of the most comprehensively dominant in history. If we use F1, the banning of electronic aids and the end of the 3.5L era actually widened the gulf between the big and small teams, so much so that by the end of 1996 all of the privateer teams had vanished and left former midfielders struggling to survive, even though it was intended to do the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:F1 is a good example, the laptimes from first-to-last are probably closer than they've ever been and the last two seasons have been some of the most comprehensively dominant in history. Instead of throwing money at macro problems (new engine parts/much bigger and more visible aero pieces) now F1 teams are going further down narrower and narrower alleys where they're essentially sharpening a razor blade instead of finding something new. The WEC is a better case right now for the LMPs, but that's more in power train than its in aero - but it produced a very well-done series, where the team with the smallest budget won the most races and both championships. [Edit] to say it again - the genie can't go back in the bottle, and we can't go back to the 1960s again. That world is gone. It takes too much to get a car running and competitive, never mind designing one from the ground up. I'm personally most in favor of Will Power's suggestions, partially because they are so moderated and measured - IndyCar is producing good racing, it just has a business and marketing problem. Maybe the tire suggestion would be good to improve the show, or the chassis too, but he's right that it's so much about promotion right now. harperdc fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:If we use F1, the banning of electronic aids and the end of the 3.5L era actually widened the gulf between the big and small teams, so much so that by the end of 1996 all of the privateer teams had vanished and left former midfielders struggling to survive, even though it was intended to do the opposite. 25 years ago F1 had 39 entrants at every race. In 2 months we'll likely have 18. But yeah, the only way to reduce budgets is to have no-one willing to spend on it. Because any kind of cost control short of "You can force someone to sell you their car for £x" is so easily bypassed in motorsport in a way that doesn't really happen in field sports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Instead of throwing money at macro problems (new engine parts/much bigger and more visible aero pieces) now F1 teams are going further down narrower and narrower alleys where they're essentially sharpening a razor blade instead of finding something new. The WEC is a better case right now for the LMPs, but that's more in power train than its in aero - but it produced a very well-done series, where the team with the smallest budget won the most races and both championships. I agree that WEC is getting it right with the amount of freedom to keep things interesting, while keeping it somewhat in check without a team dominating the series. With Nissan coming in with a full factory effort in LMP1, the future looks bright. However WEC does suffer from a bit of the Indycar syndrome, in that most people only care about the 24 Hours of Le mans, and the other races are a moot point. Dudley posted:25 years ago F1 had 39 entrants at every race. In 2 months we'll likely have 18. F1's biggest issue is the way the money is distributed. The biggest teams get a disproportionate amount of the money, and leave the smaller teams with whats left. 25 years ago it meant something to own a F1 team, just having the rights to be on grid was a valuable asset. Today, not so much. I think overall the reason why attendance and viewership is down for racing is that racing is now having to compete more and more with other much easier forms of entertainment. You will always have your hardcore fans show up, but to get the average fan to spend $80 bucks per ticket, to drive 5 hours, to spend a day in the heat with 200,000 other assholes and then deal with the traffic. Most people will just netflix. Until the major series get there promotion and marketing right, its going to be more of the same no matter what type of rules are in place. Indy Car in particular needs to find some way to connect with the average fan. Its really kinda upsetting because the on track racing has been great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Phallus Malice posted:Until the major series get there promotion and marketing right, its going to be more of the same no matter what type of rules are in place. Indy Car in particular needs to find some way to connect with the average fan. Its really kinda upsetting because the on track racing has been great. Well, I mean that's a problem across every series right now. (well except WOO). A lot of people will go up and point to ratings for NASCAR...but have you noticed that there's been a sharp downturn in attendance? Sure as hell isn't cheap to go to a NASCAR race for their "blue collar" fanbase, and the "surburb types" have all but completely lost interest in the sport. For IndyCar...the reason is kind of similar, though it always struck me that the "Surburb" types that NASCAR got from 1995-2008? Were all people that would have been at IndyCar races back in the day. Those types? Well they've just left the sphere entirely. I imagine dirt track/short track racing is succeeding right now in the county because...well...it's cheap. For IndyCar AND NASCAR to succeed on ovals they need to kind of bring that culture to events like Milwaukee and Texas. (The Road Course/Street Course model is working really, really, really well...so need to worry about say...Long Beach or Mid Ohio). I do agree with Bobby Unser in that the sport really needs to try to evaluate the Indy 500 again to a decent level in terms of promotion and coverage in order for the sport to succeed. I think when you get it to a certain level? It'll trickle back down to other events and allow the drivers of the 500/ICS to become more visible figures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
again: air the loving indy 500 in indy. this is bar none the stupidest thing indycar is currently doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:again: air the loving indy 500 in indy. this is bar none the stupidest thing indycar is currently doing. The problem would be...? It would hurt attendance. Perhaps it should be similar to the NFL, in that if the race is a sell out? It'll be aired on local TV. Also if I lived in Indiana? I would be at the race, hell or highwater.  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Fear of change is a hell of a thing for IMS ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:The problem would be...? It would hurt attendance. Perhaps it should be similar to the NFL, in that if the race is a sell out? It'll be aired on local TV. literally every single study ever done on the subject has shown that local blackouts hurt attendance, and attendance increases once the blackout is lifted. why would anyone buy tickets to something they've never seen, that they're barely aware even exists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
The blackout is really stupid. They are real!  Hargrove fastest in the first session, everyone is just getting a hang of the car so it doesn't really mean much. Still cool to see em out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
So what are some good races from the past that are worth watching in the off season?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:40
|
|
