This year, despite it all, we do need to remind fans that we're faster

[Turn13]

But the actual racing has nothing to do with it? Interesting. Maybe I should ask the question differently: why do you think the sporting public and racing community has largely rejected the "product" that is Indy car racing (in spite of the fact that the cars can go faster)?

I think the product has suffered as a result of the decrease in popularity, certainly, and especially relative to NASCAR. IndyCar has lost talent, teams, venues, and even had to resort to spec racing.

NASCAR and F1 re the two most popular series in the world, but the on-track products are almost diametric What they do have in common is a popular hegemony that delivers the best talent, selectivity in access and venues, and the aura of being the best, most desirable place to be on a given weekend - things IndyCar also had when it was more popular and unchallenged.

Oh, and F1 is faster, too - they just don't run ovals. Go fig'

[Baigu]

Nascar is popular for multiple reasons. For me, the main one's are:
- Cheap to compete ( ready to race car about 150 000$)
- Entertaining for casual fans. Any driver can win (on ovals)
- Really good & financially strong ladder system ( Look up Nascar Home Tracks)

[Todd Gack]

Nascar is popular for multiple reasons. For me, the main one's are:
- Cheap to compete ( ready to race car about 150 000$)

NASCAR is popular for many reasons, but its not cheap to compete....especially in Nationwide and Cup.

[Baigu]

NASCAR is popular for many reasons, but its not cheap to compete....especially in Nationwide and Cup.

NOW it's isn't cheap, which is why you see fewer and bigger teams. But the ladder series to Nascar are much more affordable than open wheel series, which will attract more teams and drivers.

[PenelopePitstop]

But it's a superlative that IndyCar possesses, so of course some are going to poo-poo it

Local newspaper said race cars were hitting 210 this weekend. Didn't mention Indycars because they were not on the track. Not pooh-poohing anything, just stating facts that irritate you but please the racing gods.

[Turn13]

Local newspaper said race cars were hitting 210 this weekend. Didn't mention Indycars because they were not on the track. Not pooh-poohing anything, just stating facts that irritate you but please the racing gods.

Irritate moi? Porquoi?

Pretty sure the racing gods know that the car that is faster is faster on the same day on the same track.

What you are describing is the relative speeds of the tracks. NASCAR runs on tracks with higher sustained speeds, but they do so with cars that are slower.

Not faster.

The racing gods know the difference

Not saying speed is the only thing, but it is one big thing, when it comes to racing, and especially when it comes to the racing I enjoy most.

I'm intrigued that NASCAR is going 210. Heck, they may qualify at higher speeds at the Daytona 500 than the Indianapolis 500 this year It's happened before, hasn't it? But of course not without extenuating circumstances. Think we'd hear about it then? Probably every time they reclaimed a speed record at one of their venues (probably currently held by IndyCar, if they've been there)

I'm not irritated. I like winning arguments

[lkchris]

The racing gods know the difference

Racing gods don't pay racetrack admissions or buy sponsors' products. It's the business forum, right?

When you get your business degree you study lots of statistics and learn pretty quickly that samples of one opinion are uselessly small samples. When you get a feasible sample size you can trust the data.

It's nice to have a forum to post individual opinions but reality requires recogition that a single opinion does not represent fact and really it should not represent fact even to the single person holding it. Yes, it's factual that indycars are faster. It's also factual it has little economic impact or creates much fan interest.

When the data don't come out your way it's better to just try harder, change your approach, etc., etc., i.e. much better than simply being a sore loser.

No, indycar needs to be an "American" sport and it currently isn't. And forget the Dirk Nowitzki analogies and instead check out the major league soccer analogies.

[Todd Gack]

No, indycar needs to be an "American" sport and it currently isn't. And forget the Dirk Nowitzki analogies and instead check out the major league soccer analogies.

Or how popular tennis is in this country now, that there are so few Americans worth a darn in either mens or womens tennis.

In "niche" sports (which is basically everything besides football, basketball and baseball) in this country, you better have strong American flavor and American heroes to root for or against.

[9rows]

I would expect NASCAR fans to be excited about 210mph laps at Daytona.

Just as I would expect IndyCar fans to be excited about 240mph laps at Indianapolis.

[Turn13]

Racing gods don't pay racetrack admissions or buy sponsors' products. It's the business forum, right?

When you get your business degree you study lots of statistics and learn pretty quickly that samples of one opinion are uselessly small samples. When you get a feasible sample size you can trust the data.

"For everyone of our product failures, we had spreadsheets that looked awesome" - Scott Cook, President and CEO of Intuit Corp.

This started out as an IndyCar topic, not a Biz one. I just think speed is fun

Yes, it's factual that indycars are faster.

Well, hallelujah I thought so, too

It's also factual it has little economic impact or creates much fan interest.

When the data don't come out your way it's better to just try harder, change your approach, etc., etc., i.e. much better than simply being a sore loser.

No, indycar needs to be an "American" sport and it currently isn't. And forget the Dirk Nowitzki analogies and instead check out the major league soccer analogies.

I think it probably takes a lot of things to be popular, some of which may be irrational, contradictory, random, or based on luck.

Speed is certainly part of the equation. Perhaps secondary to the variables of how that speed is sold and told

USAC and WoO are "American" sports, presumably, but they don't get crowds or TV audiences as big as IndyCar's, even, so there must be more to it.

And don't tell me they're just regional and not trying to be as big as they can be Even the Chili Bowl had competitors from border to border, sea to sea, and even a foreign contingent.

It takes everything. See my "Product / Promotion" thread. I just don't "get" why some people are so opposed to IndyCar being noted, factually, for the speed aspect that is one of it's "uniques". If NASCAR took over the top speed on ovals, I admit I'd be more interested.

[PenelopePitstop]

NASCAR runs on tracks with higher sustained speeds

That is what makes the racing action faster in NASCAR. It isn't my fault they prefer to race at higher speeds in NASCAR by a margin of 30-6. Cup fans prefer high-speed action. You prefer slower speeds on race weekend.

You win?

[Billy Chin]

Or how popular tennis is in this country now, that there are so few Americans worth a darn in either mens or womens tennis.

In "niche" sports (which is basically everything besides football, basketball and baseball) in this country, you better have strong American flavor and American heroes to root for or against.

Indy car could be comprised of mostly American drivers and it wouldn't be any more popular. Cheever, Rice, Hornish, Andretti, Rahal . . . Nobody in the American sporting public knows who these guys are.

[Todd Gack]

1. Indy car could be comprised of mostly American drivers and it wouldn't be any more popular.

2. Cheever, Rice, Hornish, Andretti, Rahal . . . Nobody in the American sporting public knows who these guys are.

1. How do we know? Here is what we do know....being composed of 6-9 Americans in the series and having record low numbers of Americans in the Indy 500, hasn't led to a lot of interest in the sport in this country. Despite consistantly changing about everything else with the sport (and doing everything we can to get things back to the CART-era of the mid 90's).

Why not go back to the way it used to be (for the first 4-5 decades of Championship Racing before the 1990's) and actually see if that will work? Until we try it and give it a legit shot (with a unified series) for a legit period of time, we'll never know. American heroes built Indy Car Racing. And as fewer and fewer of them have been invited to the party, the sport has fallen off the map.

2. Hornish was arguably the most popular racer in Indy Cars before he left (not counting Patrick). Anyone who knows anything about racing knows the Andretti and Rahal name. All they need to do is start running up front regularly. Winning Indy would instantly make either one a star too. Rice got shuffled out of the sport far too soon before he could capitalize on his Indy 500 win.

We get the sport back to having at least 15 solid American drivers and over 20 Americans in the Indy 500 again and do it for a consistant period of time, and we'll see the interest in the sport pick back up again. If we don't, then its going to be real hard to make much of a dent, no matter what else is done.

[Billy Chin]

1. How do we know? Here is what we do know....being composed of 6-9 Americans in the series and having record low numbers of Americans in the Indy 500, hasn't led to a lot of interest in the sport in this country. Despite consistantly changing about everything else with the sport (and doing everything we can to get things back to the CART-era of the mid 90's).

Why not go back to the way it used to be (for the first 4-5 decades of Championship Racing before the 1990's) and actually see if that will work? Until we try it and give it a legit shot (with a unified series) for a legit period of time, we'll never know. American heroes built Indy Car Racing. And as fewer and fewer of them have been invited to the party, the sport has fallen off the map.

2. Hornish was arguably the most popular racer in Indy Cars before he left (not counting Patrick). Anyone who knows anything about racing knows the Andretti and Rahal name. All they need to do is start running up front regularly. Winning Indy would instantly make either one a star too. Rice got shuffled out of the sport far too soon before he could capitalize on his Indy 500 win.

We get the sport back to having at least 15 solid American drivers and over 20 Americans in the Indy 500 again and do it for a consistant period of time, and we'll see the interest in the sport pick back up again. If we don't, then its going to be real hard to make much of a dent, no matter what else is done.

The point still stands: There's nothing out there that tells us that simply filling the field full of Americans would make the series any more popular than it is today. In fact, Hornish, Cheever, Rice and Lazier each won Indy, and it didn't make a star out of any of them. Most people who call themselves sports fans wouldn't have a clue who any of them are.

And, by the way, each won during the decade and a half where the All American IRL ruled the roost. And their nationality didn't matter a bit.

[Disciple]

The point still stands: There's nothing out there that tells us that simply filling the field full of Americans would make the series any more popular than it is today.

Uh, yes there is. It's called NASCAR. Plus, they race mostly on ovals, which shoots down a bunch of other arguments the Indy Car obsessed routinely toss out there.

-The Red White and Blue Disciple of INDYCAR

[Turn13]

1. How do we know?

We have the former IRL as an example - more Americans saw ratings and attendance decline. Of course, that was arguably not enough of the right Americans, and there was a split at the time.

But we also have USAC and WoO as examples - they can't even get on live TV, and their strongest national, annual events wouldn't keep a street race going. If there was really a market there ISC and SMI would be serving it.

Yes, there's a lot of grassroots oval tracks, just as there are a lot of junior league baseball diamonds and soccer fields, but almost none of them generate enough revenue to cover even grassroots racing expenses from the gate: they are funded by the participants and their families and friends.

What it boils down to is, NASCAR is successful and very very popular, for a lot of reasons, and other racing isn't.

Your argument that IndyCar could be successful if it only imitated NASCAR more would also be a reason to go to tube frames and fenders, too, but we know a lot of series that have those attributes, too, and aren't as popular or successful.

Hornish was great, but it was JPM and Alex Zanardi, not Sam, that got their mugs on the Wheaties boxes and the Target commercials. Imagine if those guys would have had an Indianapolis 500 to capitalize on.

And by what tactic would you determine to limit the participation of faster, more deserving foreign drivers, that wouldn't violate the All-American sensibilities of every red-blooded patriot in this country??

[Todd Gack]

1. There's nothing out there that tells us that simply filling the field full of Americans would make the series any more popular than it is today.

2. In fact, Hornish, Cheever, Rice and Lazier each won Indy, and it didn't make a star out of any of them.

1. There is nothing that tells us it wouldn't help the popularity either. The only thing we can go on, is as the sport has gotten less and less "American", the interest in the sport has continued to either stay stagnant at very low levels or has gone down. That we do know. And until we actually do it the other way (and do it for a consistent period of time) we will never know for sure, will we?

2. Nobody was going to become a "star" during the IRL/Champ Car years. Except for Patrick, who became a star for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with actual racing accomplishment. Dixon and Dario and Bourdais didn't become "stars" either. Now that everyone is rowing the boat in the same direction, you might be able to create stars if you have drivers who are marketable and sellable to the consumer.

[Turn13]

1. There is nothing that tells us it wouldn't help the popularity either.

Yes there is - see post #76 above yours

[Todd Gack]

1. We have the former IRL as an example - more Americans saw ratings and attendance decline. Of course, that was arguably not enough of the right Americans, and there was a split at the time.

2. Your argument that IndyCar could be successful if it only imitated NASCAR more would also be a reason to go to tube frames and fenders, too, but we know a lot of series that have those attributes, too, and aren't as popular or successful.

1. Except, ratings were actually better for most Indy Car races in those late 1990's days then we have now at most places. And the Indy 500 ratings, despite unification, really haven't gone anywhere and still trail behind many of those "IRL" years too.

Yes, we had some Americans in the sport then. But there was very little consistancy in rides for some of them and a few (like Stewart) left when he had been around long enough to cultivate a following among Indy Car fans. Plus there was still a stigma (which was mostly fabricated from paid pundits like Miller and Kirby) that guys like Sharp and Dismore and Ward were "castoffs" from CART and 2nd rate drivers, which hurt public perception.

2. Who says Indy Car needs to imitate NASCAR? I just think they need to get back to having some of the best American racers in their sport again (which is what they had in the 60's and 70's and 80's). The kinds of drivers that truly built the sport. And most of those drivers, weren't F1 castoffs and guys from all over the planet. No need to imitate NASCAR. Just study why they are popular and why you aren't. And the driver lineup plays a big role in that, whether we like it or not. Especially with fringe sports fans.

[Turn13]

1. Except, ratings were actually better for most Indy Car races in those late 1990's days then we have now at most places.

And they went down every year, too, Todd, by a lot. The Indy 500 never took a hit as big as it did ion 1996. It continued to lose half it's audience or more before the merger.

There was no "more time" to be given. It was cratering.

Good grief, how many times do we need to go over this?

2. Who says Indy Car needs to imitate NASCAR? I just think they need to get back to having some of the best American racers in their sport again (which is what they had in the 60's and 70's and 80's).

I do too, but the only way to attract and retain them is with bigger crowds and ratings first. That's what the good drivers are looking for - - by following the money.

ps - that's how those drivers were lost in the first place: by soft demand, especially relative to NASCAR. Likewise, F1 was generating an abundant supply of well-trained and funded overflow drivers, at the same time. Perfect storm

It wasn't the well-trained ones that caused the problem - it's the subsidized ones - foreign or domestic. IndyCar fans never were that stupid to not be able to appreciate talent, nor were they gullible enough to fall for some phony People magazine PR crap. At least, they didn't used to.

Likewise, American fans attended the F1 USGP in great numbers, until they were turned off by utterly arrogant politics and management* in the face of the botched event sponsorship negotiations. They also turn out for the MotoGP, on the road course, in very decent numbers.

And I believe Supercross has some right turns as well

* of course, Goodyear did almost as poorly with their decisions at the Brickyard, too.

[PenelopePitstop]

I dont care what speed the taxi cabs run, all I know is some out of shape drivers as well as drivers 45+ in age can handle the cars plenty well enough to be competitive. You dont see that in Indycar.

Al Unser was 47 when he entered the 1987 Indy 500. Did you know that? Out of shape and 45+, he was able to win the fastest Indycar race on the schedule.

[Billy Chin]

Uh, yes there is. It's called NASCAR. Plus, they race mostly on ovals, which shoots down a bunch of other arguments the Indy Car obsessed routinely toss out there.

-The Red White and Blue Disciple of INDYCAR

Uh, so you're saying that another racing series has already addressed that niche in the marketplace? And that they're successful simply because their fields are comprised of Americans? Okey dokey.

But it does beg the question: If Nascar has already filled that niche, why would there be a need for Indy car? Perhaps that's why the sport has such a low profile.

[Jakester]

I dont care what speed the taxi cabs run, all I know is some out of shape drivers as well as drivers 45+ in age can handle the cars plenty well enough to be competitive. You dont see that in Indycar.

But you do see it in sprint car racing which is 'where IndyCar drivers should come from': Sammy Swindell just took 2nd at Chili Bowl (born in 1955).

[PenelopePitstop]

This isn't a NASCAR bashing site.

"Pokey NASCAR drivers crow about hitting 210 in the draft at Daytona"

That was the entirety of the post that begins this thread. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you seem to have missed that one.

[lkchris]

There's nothing out there that tells us that simply filling the field full of Americans would make the series any more popular than it is today.

Oh, how about this.

Do you suppose Versus/NBC or ABC would run a driver profile of some rich kid from Venezuela with state sponsorship? I don't think so. Well, I suppose they could contrast his priveleged position with the poverty and social problems in the rest of his country, but, again, I don't think so.

But, the networks would VERY likely do a profile on a blue-collar American kid that came from nothing and nowhere to an Indy ride. And viewers would love it.

AND, they'd know there would be viewer interest even in the 2nd generation guys, as the Rahal and Andretti stories are pretty interesting, especially that of the Andrettis, who also came from a poor economic background.

I think Indycar indeed would become "more popular" with coverage like this. Why don't you?

[doitagain]

"Pokey NASCAR drivers crow about hitting 210 in the draft at Daytona"

That was the entirety of the post that begins this thread. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you seem to have missed that one.

No, I just didn't take it as bashing.

[Jakester]

But, the networks would VERY likely do a profile on a blue-collar American kid that came from nothing and nowhere to an Indy ride. And viewers would love it.

AND, they'd know there would be viewer interest even in the 2nd generation guys, as the Rahal and Andretti stories are pretty interesting, especially that of the Andrettis, who also came from a poor economic background.

Mario and Bobby bootstrapped themselves up from little, but I don't think those humble beginnings apply to Marco or Graham. A profile on a third generation rich kid who got his opportunity driving for his dad?

What about a profile on a Brazilian kid who slept on garage floors, made it to the bigs, then lost his ride on a team that kept the owner's son, only to get a last minute ride with a 'second rate team' at the last minute and parlayed that into 5th place in the final standings, including a 'miracle' 3rd place finish mere hours after a devastating practice crash. You know, the guy that does iron man marathons in his spare time.

[Turn13]

Anybody see the subtitle of Darrell Waltrip's new book?

Sundays Will Never Be the Same: Racing, Tragedy, and Redemption--My Life in America's Fastest Sport

[PenelopePitstop]

NASCAR runs on tracks with higher sustained speeds, but they do so with cars that are slower.

Not faster.

So if NASCAR racecars are going faster on a given weekend with slower cars, but Indycars are going slower with cars capable of faster speeds, that still makes NASCAR the faster series, doesn't it?

We'll keep a running tally of which series actually puts a faster show in front of their audiences this season just to remind everyone which series is the faster on race day.

[pb]

Anybody see the subtitle of Darrell Waltrip's new book?

Sundays Will Never Be the Same: Racing, Tragedy, and Redemption--My Life in America's Fastest Sport

So he's branching out and writing about NHRA. Big whoop.