Give Musco a couple weeks notice and it will be lighted.Originally Posted by railroad
Give Musco a couple weeks notice and it will be lighted.
Last edited by Sleepcheap; 12-31-2011 at 09:10 PM.
The question was not what sort of thinking might be found here in this forum or what you have encountered. Rather, it was about what sort of thinking is going on in the IICS or motor sports in general.
Spike
"The IRL's future should be good, but it can't be the grass-roots series Tony George envisioned. That was a wet dream." - Bobby Unser
Doesn't it already exist in Motorsports? Isn't that kind of what's going on in the drifting world? With whatever they are doing. I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of xgames or something with cars ramping over top of other cars, etc.
But most of us don't like it. Because we like traditional Motorsports. That's not a bad thing. So the question is how far "outside of the box" do you want to go. Since most fans like traditional Motorsports, I'm going to guess not very far. See rock n racing (or whatever it was champ car tried), the delta wing, etc.
What's the last "outside the box" idea for the NFL? The MLB (designated hitter?). Not much, because they are traditional sports that people like. Until someone else comes out with something completely different that captures the publics interest. (boxing vs MMA)
It seems that way. But what if that small box is the only one that will allow the series to survive? It's like a minefield; one wrong move and you're dead. The sisters have taken away the big cushy safety net. That makes people conservative. The series is fighting a battle on many fronts, not the least of which is that Americans aren't in love with motor vehicles anymore. Look, the H-G family has a lot of money tied up in the speedway. If it weren't for that, I think Indycar would be an endangered species right now. But Randy doesn't have the option of pessimism; he's got a job to do. He's got to get through the minefield.I'd typically agree, but IndyCar's principals except forare unfortunately trapped in a very small box. The fact that people like Penske still think that "being in a TV ad will make someone a star" is just ludricious. They think if we go back to the 70s or 80s or 90s that everything will be fine.
IMO, this is part of what is happening: Americans don't care as much about cars, and they are less technically inclined than the post-WWII generation. Very few Americans are going into engineering and science now. Less educated Americans, if they follow racing at all, will follow other series. More educated Americans aren't interested in racing, and don't understand technology, which is a big part of the allure of Indycars. This is why I don't blame Randy for weak ratings. IMO, if Randy can maintain steady ratings in the face of all these headwinds, he's already successful. If he can pull a rabbit out of the hat, he's a genius. The only negative with Randy is that he has problems with promoters, like Milwaukee and Baltimore. Maybe he should be more involved, in an advisory and oversight way. Because if the promoters fail, the sport fails. But talk is cheap; there may be very good reasons why those things happened, in spite of Randy's best efforts. We just don't know.
I think Latin America could be a very big market for the sport. It's pretty popular there, and there is a lot of economic growth, and some of the drivers are well known, and there isn't much competition from F1. F1 is pulling away from its traditional European fan base, and going where the money is. Maybe Indycar will do the same, and be kind of a poor man's F1, with cheaper tickets and easier access. Maybe Indycar will end up with just a couple of races in the US.
Wrannnnng! You are still inside the box. Why the F do some of you keep jumping to the conclusion that outside the box means adding or trying gimmicks? It doesn't. It means finding a new way to play the same game!
"Try some of these before or after your statements if you are not presenting them as facts. Things like - "In my opinion", or "I think that", JHMO, IMHO, IMO, JMO... Your opinions are not (necessarily) fact. That would clear things up some." - Seadog 03/25/2010 11:40am So the above is JMO.
So maybe Randy needs to find a way to bring the romance back to the car industry?
Indy used to be a proving ground for the auto industry, i think it would be pretty appropriate if Indy was involved in reinvigorating the auto industry and impassioning (is that a word spike?) auto enthusiasts.
You can be damn sure if I had the worlds largest car dealer in my stable and on my speed dial I'd be looking at ways to try and do that.
Seems like the only people who care any more about cars are the people at Top Gear. Maybe Randy needs to take the torch and champion the cause.
Not true. Universities take in huge classes of freshman science and engineering majors, who try it and then switch to humanities if they can't handle it. The US produces many more science PhDs and MSs than it can hire for those skills. Generally, US engineering and science programs wash students out who would stay in other countries (esp the emerging countries).Very few Americans are going into engineering and science now.
The hundreds of thousands of engineering/science grads quoted for India and China are inflated by grads in programs that would be considered certificates or associate degrees in the US. There isn't reliable data for four-year programs in China, but India and the US both graduate 200K+ four-year engineering degrees. Considering that India has triple the population (though only a fraction of that population would aspire to college), that isn't bad. Note that India doesn't have a huge population of engineering grads from the 70s, 80s, and 90s already in the workforce; they can use absolutely everyone they can train. The US doesn't have that much need.
The fans should be the absolute last people considered on any decision that could effect a participant. Doc Austin
Lying was a no-brainer for me. Robin Miller
"I thought they booed [Danica] because she was being a complete jerk, but then they applauded for A.J. Foyt. Now I'm just confused."
So doesn't this contradict the thread you started yesterday asking "At What Point Does IndydCar Stop being "Indy Car"??? where you stated
So do you want the same old same old, or do you want change?After the merger, I was presented with what I once recognized as "Indy Car" racing but once again certain elements are disappearing and it is slowly losing its identifying characteristics.
At a certain point those identifying characteristics will be gone or enough of them lost that I will no longer have an interest.
The corner IndyCar is painted into is the rear-engine, open wheel corner, which has been based in road racing since Sir Jack brought his Cooper over in 1961. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but that shift fundamentally changed the path to the big leagues from the bullrings of the midwest to the road courses of the east coast, Europe and South America. My gut tells me that if you want to rebuild the fan base and get more American drivers involved you need to do something to make driving a midget, sprint or even a late model relevant to driving at Indianapolis again.
I don't think I'm suggesting that IndyCar go back to front engine cars because I know you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I do recall that up until the mid to late 70's the National Championship included races on dirt and I remember them running dirt champ cars with variations of the same engines they ran at the Speedway. Perhaps something along those lines will renew some interest. I'll leave the detail for y'all to hash out. I'm shutting down to watch spray tanned Dick Clark make the ball drop.
The Unofficial, Self-Appointed Gloom & Doom Police...
Ideas cost money.
Where are they? I've been an engineer since the 1960s. Every year the number of American engineers in the night classes I take and the companies I work at gets less and less. Last time I took night classes in EE courses, there were maybe two or three Americans out of 30 students in a class. I can stay in engineering until I'm senile, because there is nobody to replace me. Pick up a professional journal in engineering or physics, and look at the names of the authors. You'll see what I mean. I'm really afraid that the US is going to lose the whole engineering profession, because it's so hard to get qualified people.
I've been told people that are involved in motorsports, IndyCar specifically, post here all the time. Did you not know that? Or does Eddie Gossage not qualify in your book? Ernest
Gonzo, why do you assume that drifting, the xgames or delta wing are gimmicks? And I'm still inside the box?
You started the topic and specifically opened it up to Motorsports in general. To which I contend, there are areas where people are taking the same game (Motorsports) and presenting it differently. If you don't think drifting or my xgames reference, or even the Race of Champions are doing that, I'm not sure what your looking for.
I'm sorry I didn't give you the answer you wanted. If you wanted it only about indycar, you should have made it so.
See post #35 followed by 36!
Inside the box, you and everything you just listed.....xgames, race of champions, whatever, everybody is doin the same thing.
Oh. I get it. It's inside a box if you you don't agree with a position. That makes for a good discussion.
That's what you get from a discussion based on a cliche.
.........box!
I agree that you need the right drivers to create long term viability....but like I say, normally it's up to the team owners as to who they pick for their seats. So, you would need a system that means they can find it viable to pick the talented drivers, ie significantly lower costs etc like I've said before.
However, maybe the answer is to break that tradition of team owners choosing the drivers. Whilst ultimately these normal teams should have control of this ever so vital of aspects, what if IndyCar offered full season scholarships for a selection of the right, talented drivers? If you had the 'significantly lower costs' in place, this could actually be worth it financially for IndyCar. Marketing these drivers as well as others like the way you suggested would then follow well.
As other ideas, I believe in racing on all types of track; superspeedways, regular ovals, short paved ovals, dirt ovals, road courses and street circuits. Have a car that can be adaptable for all of those; not a formula styled car like Indy Cars of the past 30 years, but something based on sprint/silver crown cars but faster, safer and bigger.
Each Indy Car race should be a festival, let the fans join in the party. Let the population know 'Indy Car is in town!'. If you have the right, unique on track product that I've repeated many times before, you can grow peoples curiosity. That curiosity can be a wonderful thing...
I agree, but base it on open wheel unlimited hill climb cars. They are already designed to turn both directions on pavement or dirt, some have wings some don't, and very importantly non stressed engines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_bP8...e_gdata_player
Congratulations to RHR, & all the winning drivers & teams in the fantastic 2012 season. Looking forward to 2013!
We are all together now. Goal 22-24 races per year split 50:50 oval:RC/SC
No, but making them real sometimes does.
Constipated thinking. Do try to pay attention. Again, conversations within this forum do not constitute the thinking that is going on within the IICS or other motorsports. The former does not equal the latter - even if Eddie Gossage hizownself posted a few brief messages here way back when.
Happy New Year,
Spike
I know i'm missing the point about bringing something new into the sport....but a lot of sports have stayed pretty status quo and are still popular. football, baseball, basketball, hockey etc
One question i allways have, is how can more US cities not get involved. My hometown race ''ëdmonton'' gets raked over the coals pretty good for one reason or another. Edmonton is a small city by any standard to our american counterparts, but yet they manage to pay the fees and enjoy a cool weekend, despite it not having history or track. How can bigger US cities or even similar size cities as edmonton, not think outside the box long enough to realize the value of an event. Thinking outside the box may mean less of we should be racing here(name favorite track that cant or wont have an indy race) and spend more time finding partners that have the will to get an event going.
.....every dog was born free to live, even if it means dying.
fav car pics
http://s197.photobucket.com/albums/a...%20car%20pics/
After a good night's sleep I think I've figured out what is needed...
What Indycar needs is a developmental series based on a USF2000 or Star Mazda size car but for ovals only. Something mid-engine like an IndyCar but robust like a sprint or midget. Something that complements the current open wheel ladder and provides a relevant training ground for drivers looking to move up.
Think about it. For a couple decades now the path to IndyCar has gone through road racing, but everyone wants IndyCar to have as many ovals as possible. Currently these two things have worked against each other. I don't know the exact number (I'm sure someone probably has this information) but in the U.S. there are probably at least five oval tracks for each road course and the number of competitors is probably as skewed toward the ovals as well (in my state, we have three ovals and one road course). If you look at the car counts for the oval races on the Star Mazda and USF2000 schedules you'll see that the numbers go down when the series get away from the road courses.
The best thing IndyCar can do to get more of the American drivers everyone seems to be clamoring for is to go where they are and give them a path to follow, but not at the expense of the current system. IMHO IndyCar is better because of the international field. We just need to take steps to get more Americans involved, which should lead to getting more Americans interested.
You're kidding, right? I don't think Randy and Indycar have the firepower to reverse big social trends. Maybe if Indycar was, say, 1,000 times bigger...
http://www.grist.org/transportation/...oung-americans
"...some young people feel that driving interferes with texting and other electronic communication..."
"Millennials want to live in walkable urban cores instead of suburbs and exurbs that require residents to drive everywhere."
If you keep focusing narrowly at Indycar to find insights to its problems, you'll never figure it out. If you pull back and take a wider view of the US economy and society, things will start making sense. But you may not get the answer that you were hoping for.
Lighter, faster, cheaper, safer. Works for me. Works for everybody, even Millennials who want to live in walkable urban cores (but still need everything delivered to them, as well as the occasional ambulance trip).
"The series may be hesitant to say it, but the day is here for everybody that loves IndyCar racing to link arms and help each other out. Anybody who doesn’t want to do that needs to find something else to do with their time.”
-- Eddie Gossage, President, Texas Motor Speedway, ICONIC Advisory Committee & TrackForum member
Interesting take, but if you pull back beyond motorsports and look at sports in general, football, baseball and soccer seem to attract millenials with varying degrees of success. Perhaps the answer is to not try and tie racing as a sport from the act of driving. "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" may have worked in the 60's but it is somewhat irrelevant now.
Hey Gonzo!
Still waiting for one idea from you.
Or do you not have any, just criticism of others?
HNY!
How come nobodies asked about Art Sugai's car?
Probably can't recognize the driver! Rick Mears
I struggle with the idea that technology is significant.
Football is the dominant sport both live and on television.
The NFL just signed a tv deal for +60% revenue.
Football looks a lot like it did 100 years ago.
It has the connection of college and locality affiliation.
Beyond that, not sure how we deal with affinity in motorsports.
"Turn right to go left" Doc Hudson
"Perhaps the answer is to not try and tie racing as a sport from the act of driving. "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" may have worked in the 60's but it is somewhat irrelevant now. "
Good point. I worry about the relevance aspect of racing. Does anyone really want to see Indycars with 2.2 liter econo-blocks that get good fuel economy? Sure, the auto manufacturers relate to it, but racing fans may nod off. And god forbid we go to electric propulsion. So now you have a tradeoff between mfgr. support and fan interest. It's always something. What's next, hard skinny tires? Indycars should be loud and scary fast, period. They should be the stuff of fantasy.
"I struggle with the idea that technology is significant."
Most Indycar fans don't understand all the science behind the cars. But they know that a lot of very smart people are working very hard to make these cars do nearly impossible things. The cars are awe-inspiring, like an F-18 at an air show. You don't have to have a PhD to appreciate that these cars are special. My concern is that the average person has lost that sense of awe. Maybe technology has lost its novelty.
Another thing that amazes me about Indycar is the level of driver skill. Because I have done club racing, I feel like I can appreciate what these drivers do, at least a little. But the average person has no idea. And TV makes it look so easy. I don't know about you, but every time I see an Indycar or LMP1 on TV, it looks like they are doing 35MPH. When you watch them in person at the track, it's easy to see how fearfully fast they are. Good racing camera work seems to be a lost art. Maybe they don't have the right people. Maybe some post-production twiddling would help (which of course won't help live broadcasts).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks