Our Vision for a New Day Rising in IndyCar racing is nearly complete. However, one final issue must be resolved. The Vision Statement is presented below.
IndyCar shall be the clear number-one choice among auto racing consumers in the United States. At its core is the Indianapolis 500, an iconic American institution that shall transcend the sport of racing and be a worldwide automotive celebration.
Muskie has suggested that we insert "...featuring open wheel race cars designed for competition at the Indianapolis 500...".
Should we incorporate this language? I am tempted, albeit with some reservations.
First, we might determine that the sanctioning body should enter forms of racing that do not include open-wheel cars. However, we have identified the series and not the sanctioning body in our Vision Statement. Therefore, I think that Muskie's suggestion could fit.
Second, we have had much discussion about the relationship between the 500 and the series. I quote VirtualBalboa.
"For a series to work and grow and prosper, the races must stand on their own."
Rocketman53 believes that the Indianapolis 500 should stand above all else. Conversely, Trick Dickle believes that a strong link to the 500 is essential if the series is to succeed.
Might they both be correct? I think so. That is why I would be satisfied to leave the "...at its core..." phrase, also suggested by Muskie, intact.
What do you think?
Roggespierre
I detest the term "open wheel." It is "kleenexing" the IndyCar brand. It is high on my list of things to ban from the IndyCar lexicon.
ReplyDeleteI too think the term "open wheel" is redundant. Historically IndyCar racing has been almost by definition "opem wheel". You say IndyCar to even the most casual of fan(s) and the image in their mind is an open wheel race car. Let's leave it out of the vision statement.
ReplyDeleteI too think the term "open wheel" is redundant. Historically IndyCar racing has been almost by definition "opem wheel". You say IndyCar to even the most casual of fan(s) and the image in their mind is an open wheel race car. Let's leave it out of the vision statement.
ReplyDeleteI too think the term "open wheel" is redundant. Historically IndyCar racing has been almost by definition "opem wheel". You say IndyCar to even the most casual of fan(s) and the image in their mind is an open wheel race car. Let's leave it out of the vision statement.
ReplyDeleteI think the only way a SERIES or the sport of Indy Car Racing can ever succeed long-term and find its "niche" in the American racing scene, is to properly link the biggest race in its series or sport (the Indy 500) with the rest of the series.
ReplyDeleteRight now, Indy Car Racing does not run another 500 mile race. It doesn't race on a track bigger then 1.5 miles long. It runs fewer and fewer oval races every year. The "link" between the Indy 500 and the racing/heritage/history of the event and most of what you see in the rest of the series is not there. And its getting farther away from one another each and every year.
Again its really a simple thing... If your biggest race of your sport is a oval race, in the middle of America, then the rest of your series needs to more closely mirror that particular race. The "grab bag" of races now (or "diversity" as some would like to say) only dilutes the overall product or confuses the consumer. The constant upheaval of tracks and "vision" for the sport does not help either. The "we'll go where we can make a quick buck" mentality of the leadership of the sport continues to kill it (and its been going on for about 20 years now, with different folks making the same mistakes over and over again while in charge).
With NASCAR, you know what you are going to get. Its about a consistant lineup of American drivers, racing on American race tracks and dominated by ovals. Their biggest race (Daytona) links with the rest of their schedule. Their plan hasn't changed much over time and most tracks on the schedule have been with them for decades. Its consistant. Maybe too consistant, for some (NASCAR has always been slow to change courses, for better or worse). But you know what you are getting. And when you watch Daytona, you know the next race is going to have similarities to that race and so on as the season progresses.
If after Daytona, you went to 4 straight road courses, and ovals only made up 40% of the Cup schedule, then they'd be in the same boat. They have been smart enough, to not make the same mistakes that AOW has.
With CART and now Indy Car (since about 2006), you can watch the Indy 500 (which is the only race that still garners any attention or ratings) and it has absolutely nothing (or very, very little) to do with much of the rest of the schedule. Even the rules (from alternate tires, to "push to pass" to standing starts) didn't/don't relate. And as these type of events and road racing mindsets continue to dominate the rest of the sport outside Indy, the two entities continue to drift farther and farther away from one another. And that HAS to change soon. It has to. If it doesn't, then BOTH entities will ultimately fail/die in their current states.
My apologes for the multiple posts. My wireless internet connection is being wonky. Sorry guys.
ReplyDeleteTrick Dickle said...
ReplyDelete"I think the only way a SERIES or the sport of Indy Car Racing can ever succeed long-term and find its "niche" in the American racing scene, is to properly link the biggest race in its series or sport (the Indy 500) with the rest of the series."
TD,
For that to work long-term both parties (ICS & the 500) would need to gain and/or need one another to survive. The ICS certainly needs the 500 and gains by having it as part of the schedule. The 500, on the other hand, doesn't gain anything from the series but may need the series participants to fill the field. In fact, that latter perceived need is why the IRL was created in the first place.
The point is, one could argue there was never a market demand for ICS at all, simply a need from the 500 for a quasi-independent series to insure the 500's survival. For me, that's where a lot of the problems come from: trying to generate interest for a product that wasn't borne out of market demand.
-John
Again its really a simple thing... If your biggest race of your sport is a oval race, in the middle of America, then the rest of your series needs to more closely mirror that particular race.
ReplyDeleteNASCAR has also cultivated a number of race tracks that are independent of each other and yet have long standing traditions and crowds. Take Daytona for instance. NASCAR had the guts to put on a second race at that track every 4th of July. That is unthinkable for Indy. They also decided to purposefully build an even bigger and wider version of their famed speedway. Hardly anyone complains today about the existence of Talladega.
Those are small examples. Look at the others; The emphasis on Bristol, Darlington, and Martinsville as being "throwbacks". The World/Coke 600. Are there a lot of cookie cutter tracks? Sure. Are there a lot of tracks with ingrained history? You bet your ass there are. People stick with NASCAR after Daytona because, well, _Insert Track Here_ is coming up! Dontcha love that place!
That is what Indycar lacks. It has no history aside from Indy and seemingly fears such a thing. You look at where there are crowds, and its places that open wheel has been constantly for long periods of time. Texas, Mid-Ohio, Milwaukee, and Long Beach spring to mind. Iowa could be. Lots of other tracks might work too should they be up to snuff (Gateway? Cleveland? Rockingham? Pocono?). Indycar doesn't need to find a place; it needs to find places to support a series. Until the people behind the sport are willing to do that, we will get nowhere as far as a world beyond Indy goes.
When I joined this conversation I was pretty much convinced of two things – the “500” was the only viable asset and demanding of restoration, and the IRL could only run off OPM and was thus unsustainable. In all I've read since, my opinion hasn't changed.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone has figured out how to make a series profitable, or sustainable, without stripping resources from the 500, I've not heard the plan. As John points out above, the series was not a product of unfulfilled market demand.
Here's a recent example of “dumb thinking”: “I don’t know about team support, but from the league standpoint, IMS and the IRL are hooked at the hip. Only a fool would believe that’s not the case, especially after you see how many people show up for the (NASCAR race) compared to how many people were at the Indy 500.” - John Barnes, Panther Racing
First off, Barnes has the (needless) league's standpoint right, but IMS could dismiss the parasitic IRL tomorrow and survive. And does it strike anyone else as diminishing to compare the iconic “500” with a common venue "regular" NASCAR event? Extend the example, take an IRL event and compare to the common venue NASCAR event...and the comparison is pretty pale.
Bottom line is that until/unless anyone can demonstrate a market for one, or that a series can sustain itself, IMS and the "500" are plainly better off without one. Preservation is otherwise a fool's errand.
BTW: The reason why there is a July 4th event at Daytona is because a 1959 USAC National Championship event on that date was cancelled after two big car drivers (Teague and Amick) were killed on the track. USAC Director of Competition Henry Banks said, "It’s a fine track, but it’s still way ahead of the equipment now available.” USAC never went back. Bill France filled the suddenly open date with a 300-mile NASCAR event.
I don't disagree with the history why there's a second July 4th race at Daytona. However, one exists, and it doesn't at all diminish the value of the racetrack, the crowds for the 500, or the Daytona 500's importance, just as the World 600, the 500 lappers at Bristol, the Southern 500, and so on have never damaged it. In that sense, why it came about is irrelevant to the fact that it did. By comparison, imagine if the IRL decided to fill the gap of F1 with a race of its own at IMS on the road course? We'd never hear the end of what a terrible idea that is and how it hurts the legacy/history/tradition at Indy. Unfortunately, "tradition" is a word that I think is bandied about rather carelessly after being irrevocably damaged. To tie yourself to that cross now is silly.
ReplyDeleteVirtualBalboa,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about tradition. The real problem, I believe, with an additional IndyCar race at the IMS is that it would likely cannibalize sales for the 500. I don't think there is any question that the Brickyard has done that to some degree. I am also opposed to a Grand Am race for the same reason.
It goes back to scarcity. It used to be that merely being at the IMS felt like a privilege. I don't think that's true anymore. The added races have surely contributed to the decline of qualifying crowds in May. They aren't the only factor - qualifying has been a foregone conclusion in recent years - but it has had an impact.
Your insight - that each event must be important on its own merits - is spot on, IMO. The reason need not be the same at each track; it would be better if each venue had a unique, defining attribute that might make it special.
That is what I imagine for a redesigned IndyCar Series, if in fact there is to be one. If that is not the case, then I will likely fall in line with Rocketman53 and say that we should give up the ghost and run one "open" race that is undeniably awesome.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Mr. Cooper,
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more about the term "open wheel". Recall the disdain with which Harry Hogge used that term in order to downplay Cole Trickle's success in "one of those Indy-type deals" in Days of Thunder. I consider the release of that film in Summer of 1990 the tipping point that led to mass market acceptance of NASCAR. It informed a new generation that if you want to confirm your skills in U.S. racing, then you had better come to NASCAR.
Reversing that now commonly held belief is central to our mission. One of our goals should be that IndyCar, or whatever we end up naming it, becomes the proving ground and that "stock car racing" becomes a cute little aside.
That is why I like the idea of making IndyCar into a National Driving Championship. I also like the idea of sanctioning a very cheap support series that features pony cars - stock cars. We must reposition the cars that race at Indy in May as the proving ground for those who want to win the National Driving Championship.
Just a thought.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
That is why I like the idea of making IndyCar into a National Driving Championship. I also like the idea of sanctioning a very cheap support series that features pony cars - stock cars. We must reposition the cars that race at Indy in May as the proving ground for those who want to win the National Driving Championship.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting idea. I do wonder about the idea though. Clearly there's already 4 series marketing itself doing this; They could easily align themselves with ARCA, who are a very low cost support series, for instance. I'm not sure what that would necessarily do for them, though.
Roggespierre wrote:
ReplyDelete"I consider the release of (Days of Thunder) in Summer of 1990 the tipping point that led to mass market acceptance of NASCAR."
That's a unique observation. Add "Driven", the 2001 Sly Stallone CART epic, that further farced-up Indy-type racing four years into the split.
Virtual Balboa wrote:
"I don't disagree with the history why there's a second July 4th race at Daytona. However, one exists, and it doesn't at all diminish the value of the racetrack, the crowds for the 500, or the Daytona 500's importance..."
I don't recall suggesting that it had any effect on the Daytona 500. I was merely pointing out the historical record after it was said, "Take Daytona for instance. NASCAR had the guts to put on a second race at that track every 4th of July." NASCAR was simply filling an unexpected hole in the 1959 DIS schedule.
Rocketman53,
ReplyDeleteYes, Driven didn't help anybody, did it?
Then again, it was a box office flop. I don't think that it had all that much impact.
Days of Thunder was a hit. It had Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in their prime. It had Robert Duval as the Voice of Wisdom. He had all of the important lines with regards to propagating NASCAR as the standard by which drivers are judged.
Even worse, NASCAR had already passed CART in the TV ratings. Daytona was very competitive with Indy on TV. The real problem was that much of what Duval said in that film was demonstrably true.
I'll never forget a conversation that I overheard at the IMS in May of 1994. One guy asked somebody sitting next to him on a qualifying day if he was going to the race.
The other guy replied, "Yeah, the real race, the one in August." The first guy laughed and agreed with him.
I was shocked and sickened.
Best,
Roggespierre