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

[PenelopePitstop]

Your intentional misquote of Jed took away valuable context.

but it cut to the core of the situation. Slower is slower.

The faster car has capability to be faster, even parked in the garage, or even on days it doesn't run; the faster series is the one capable of running faster, even on days it doesn't run, or on days it runs on slower tracks.

Potential is nice, but it doesn't get the job done. NASCAR will turn faster lap speeds most often this year. Indycar, despite their obvious advantage, will be the slower series at season's end. A shame, really, to waste all of that potential.

[pb]

I don't assume anything, but yes, I think adopting the notion of being the faster series and proving it, demonstrating it effectively and consistently would be one positive thing among many that the series and its fans could do to attract and retain more new fans.



I agree, and have said so in this thread - more than once. I think NASCAR fans appreciate things besides speed. But I'm not talking about just attracting NASCAR fans - I'm talking about using a superlative quality that IndyCar uniquely possesses that differentiates it from NASCAR to attract the 95% of potential new fans that aren't NASCAR fans.

One thing that I suppose we agree on, then, is that if IICS is to grow that game plan need not be to peel off NASCAR fans who aren't fans of other forms of motorsport. I don't know where to find those new customers but luckily that ain't my job. I don't think making a big stink about having a higher top speed would make a lick of difference to anyone we're now talking about, though. If I don't care about NASCAR, why would I care your product is faster than NASCAR?

[PenelopePitstop]

55mph is slower than 56mph no matter the course, no matter the degree of difficulty, no matter the banking, no matter the radius, no matter the vehicle dynamics.

I reject that as nonsense, and inconsistent with the commonly accepted definitions and concepts, and as demonstrated amply in this thread.

We know you do.

[Turn13]

I don't think making a big stink about having a higher top speed would make a lick of difference to anyone we're now talking about, though.

I wouldn't recommend making a big stink - but I do think a positive impression can be made

Speed is good Faster is better People can understand and appreciate it, context and all - just not according to PP, maybe.

[pb]

I wouldn't recommend making a big stink - but I do think a positive impression can be made

Speed is good Faster is better People can understand and appreciate it, context and all - just not according to PP, maybe.

No, I suppose a big stink wouldn't be good marketing.

[Todd Gack]

I think NASCAR fans appreciate things besides speed.

Yes, they appreciate their drivers.

That is the #1 reason NASCAR is king and Indy Car is millions of miles behind.

Has literally nothing to do with being fast or slow or having great races or bad races. The cars aren't any faster today in Cup then they were 20-30 years ago. The races in many cases, aren't any better (and in some cases worse) then they were 20-30 years ago.

Its about the drivers. Always has been and always will be. NASCAR has a bunch of drivers, their American fandom care about. Root for and root against. They wear their t-shirts. They put their car number stickers in their back windows of their cars and trucks. They show up at the track and watch them on TV. Week in and week out for 38 weeks a year. And they know that their race or their races in their locale are going to be back on the schedule next year and the year after that and the year after that. Probably on the same weekend too.

NASCAR has it figured out. Now, they have made their cars so safe and their tracks so safe, that the chances one of their 'meal-ticket' drivers getting hurt are slim-to-none. And they can beat and bang and have helacious wrecks and the driver is going to walk away and smile and race again tomorrow. The drivers love it and the fans love watching it. And NASCAR is smiling all the way to the bank.

One day, Indy Car will figure it out too. Or maybe they won't. Maybe they don't really care. But one day, they may figure out that once they get back to the days when your stars are Americans and your fields are dominated in numbers by Americans and you have a consistant schedule from year-to-year with drivers who are here and actually WANT to be here as their destination series, they might become relevant again and be a actual rival to NASCAR again.

Speed and great racing won't really matter either. People will start watching and caring again and the media will start covering the sport again once we get drivers into cars that elicit reaction from folks and can be sold to the American market. Right now, we aren't even close to doing that.

[Turn13]

Yes, they appreciate their drivers.

That is the #1 reason NASCAR is king and Indy Car is millions of miles behind.

You have it backwards. NASCAR can attract and retain the drivers they do because they have so many fans. Their fans appreciate their drivers just because they are the ones competing there, not because they are so adorable. Non-performers are weeded out (mostly).

IndyCar will only be able to compete for the same talent pool when they have increased their popular-revenue generating capability first.

NASCAR didn't always attract and retain America's favorite, most popular, most talented drivers. They got popular as they are now for a number of reasons, some within their control, some by luck; some by exploiting a unique opportunity with RJR, and some by exploiting various marketable attributes about themselves at various times, including their SPEED, especially when they were faster on ovals, but also of course their rubbin', their bumpin', their southern culture*, their fenders and sedan body-styles, and on and on.

But they only got their pick of the drivers after they had achieved some competitive popularity first.


* Fox commentators today discussing the infamous 1979 post-Daytona race fight described it as being especially appealing to "the rednecks".

[Todd Gack]

1. IndyCar will only be able to compete for the same talent pool when they have increased their popular-revenue generating capability first.

2. NASCAR didn't always attract and retain America's favorite, most popular, most talented drivers.

3. But they only got their pick of the drivers after they had achieved some competitive popularity first.

1. Which is going to be very hard to do, with the current driver lineup. Just a real tough sell, no matter how you market it.

2. No, they used to just get some of them. It wasn't until the Indy Car Series decided to become more and more a F1 Junior Series that some of the drivers who would have likely ended up in a Indy Car, had to look elsewhere for their racing future. How many drivers starting in the Daytona 500 tomorrow, had Indy Car drivers as their racing heroes? Too damn many, that's for sure. How many drivers starting at St. Pete in a month, had a F1 driver as their racing hero? Also, too damn many, IMO. That's the issue here. We used to actually have a sport that DREW the Kevin Harvick's and Casey Mears's and Michael McDowell's and Tony Stewart's and AJ Allmendinger's and Ricky Stenhouse's of the racing world. We actually went out and HIRED drivers like that. We don't have that anymore and it really has nothing to do with how popular or how much coin we have. Its the mindset most involved in the ICS have now. Its the limited scope type of driver, we think now is the only type of driver worthy enough of a ride. That's the problem.

3. And that "competitive popularity" would go right out the window, if they had 30 foriegn-born drivers starting tomorrow. NASCAR is popular because of the drivers (and in most cases not the other way around). And its the exact opposite in Indy Cars.

[Turn13]

Two things were happening at once, Todd, both fueled by the same circumstance: IndyCar, even as it was "growing" in attendance and ratings by 3 to 5% per year, was being eclipsed by both F1 and NASCAR, each growing at a faster rate and becoming bigger.

IndyCar's slow popular growth in absolute terms was effectively negative popular growth in terms relative to the other two series. Then the whole thing compounded and spiraled with the Split.

But the initial change in the flow of talent, both out to NASCAR and in from F1's overflow, was begun by a decline in popularity, relative to both F1 and NASCAR, first.

[Billy Chin]

Yes, there are some who reject it - but there are far, far more more who are just uninformed.

I didn't mean to suggest they were always and exclusively the same people.

Sadly, I have no doubt that you actually believe this.

[Turn13]

Sadly, I have no doubt that you actually believe this.

What data do you have to the contrary? I'd welcome the opportunity to have you share it

[ForzaFerrari]

Haven't dropped by in a while, nice to see things haven't changed too much!

PP, your argument, while technically correct, is so specious that no level minded fan is ever going to take seriously unless they have an axe to grind.

Yes, a NASCAR driving on a super speedway will go faster than an Indycar on a road course.

In the same way that a Toyota Prius on a freeway will go faster than a Lamborghini Aventador in traffic.

So yes, a NASCAR is faster than an Indycar, just like Prius's are faster than Aventador's

PS... I reckon I could probably knock out Ali these days. I guess that makes me the greatest of all time.

[Todd Gack]

PS... I reckon I could probably knock out Ali these days. I guess that makes me the greatest of all time.

Only if Ali was still billing himself and trying to sell himself as the "Greatest of All Time".

[Turn13]

NASCAR's Truck Drier today was much faster then any Indy Car Truck Drier will be in 2012.

NASCAR didn't run today, but IndyCars were going up to 200 mph on the Infineon track, with average speeds of 103 mph, while NASCAR went 0 mph. Even according to Penelope's methods, IndyCar was faster today

And look for the Cup race rating to be WAY, WAY down in 2012 at Daytona, then it was in 2011. Obviously, this will show that NASCAR is about to fold and most of their fans will be returning to Indy Cars.

I suspect the numbers will be up, or at least decent for a rain delay; they have Danica.

[Turn13]

Haven't dropped by in a while, nice to see things haven't changed too much!

We miss you when you're not here

PP, your argument, while technically correct, is so specious that no level minded fan is ever going to take seriously unless they have an axe to grind.

So it's not just me Whew!

[PenelopePitstop]

* Fox commentators today discussing the infamous 1979 post-Daytona race fight described it as being especially appealing to "the rednecks".

But those rednecks know that 56mph is faster than 55mph.

[Turn13]

But those rednecks know that 56mph is faster than 55mph.

Yeah, whatever. If they're race fans (or indeed if they've ever driven a car) they know that being "fast" also means what I said .

Which you'd have to acknowledge if you dared to answer the question

[PenelopePitstop]

PP, your argument, while technically correct, is so specious that no level minded fan is ever going to take seriously unless they have an axe to grind.

Yes, a NASCAR driving on a super speedway will go faster than an Indycar on a road course.

In the same way that a Toyota Prius on a freeway will go faster than a Lamborghini Aventador in traffic.

So yes, a NASCAR is faster than an Indycar

The whole point of the argument is that NASCAR is faster on race day when the vast majority of attention is on the respective series. Official stats of both series include race average speed.

If that Prius is racing from Indianapolis to Chicage while the Lambo is competing in a gymkhana, the Prius would be legitimately credited as being faster on that day. Indycar chooses their venues and those venues more often put a premium on handling, acceleration and deceleration. Nothing wrong with that, but NASCAR more often competes at venues that allow their cars to be (ahem) faster.

You say my argument is technically correct. That means it is not wrong. NASCAR will race at faster speeds than Indycar this year. 56mph is faster than 55mph, despite what some here proclaim. Thank you.

[PenelopePitstop]

Yeah, whatever. If they're race fans (or indeed if they've ever driven a car) they know that being "fast" also means what I said .

They and I know that what you said is very much the definition of "fast". They and I also have the intellectual capacity to know that "fast" is not necessarily "faster". Maybe some day you will be able to understand what those rednecks already grasp.

[Billy Chin]

What data do you have to the contrary? I'd welcome the opportunity to have you share it

Proof? The drastic reduction in series popularity via every measurable statistic, be it fans in the stands, merchandise sales, television ratings and team and series sponsorship. In other words, those who used to attend, watch, buy and support financially do so in greatly reduced fashion. They used to patronize it and now they don't. Those are simply facts. Unfortunately, you've provided nothing in set of your position, for obvious reasons.

[PenelopePitstop]

IndyCar's slow popular growth in absolute terms was effectively negative popular growth in terms relative to the other two series.

Growth is growth. Faster is faster. Confusion is yours alone.

[Todd Gack]

I suspect the numbers will be up, or at least decent for a rain delay; they have Danica.

And about 25 others that Americans care about watching too.

Their numbers at Daytona were up last year too. And Danica was on her couch watching like the rest of America.

[9rows]

Indycar sure doesn't.

If you own a Ferrari and do the vast majority of your driving downtown then you are either an idiot or a poseur.

why are you still posting in this thread?

after this claim...

http://www.trackforum.com/forums/sho...=1#post2926651

...being refuted several times by several posters, i'd think you would have had enough

[PenelopePitstop]

Yeah, I should have, but it is so much fun to get explanations about how 56 mph is slower than 55mph because 55 mph is scarier on a tight track.

Confusion would end if Indycar would actually go faster than NASCAR on race day. But they usually don't so bizarre examples like the one above are offered by Indycar apologists.

I'll stop making Turn13 give silly answers.

[Turn13]

Silly answers like those from the dictionary?

The only thing you have yet to break down and agree with is the obvious question you won't answer

Yeah, gee, I just can't figure out that 56>55. Darn.

You do present a nice example of what we're up against, though.

It's not just scarier, it's more physically demanding and technologically difficult - sort of the point behind most motorsports, but I do understand - entertainment gets in the way.

But some people find the faster cars more entertaining. It can be a worthy endeavor This thread was about helping people do just that.

When you think about it, Cup cars are probably behind not just IndyCars, but also USAC sprints, silver crowns, WoO sprints, and from time to time other stock car series... and that's just in America. Probably the slowest, by far, of all the professional, "destination"-type racing series.

Which is not to say it's not professional, difficult, competitive, popular, technically complex or exciting - just slower. Sorta interesting. Not something they promote, as far as I know.

That would seem to leave some room for IndyCar to use their speed as a marketable attribute, but for some reason there is a big backlash to that from some people.

[PenelopePitstop]

Yeah, gee, I just can't figure out that 56>55. Darn.

see post #269

You reject something that straightforward as "nonsense".

[Turn13]

see post #269

You reject something that straightforward as "nonsense".

Read the whole sentence. You said "...no matter the course, no matter the degree of difficulty, no matter the banking, no matter the radius, no matter the vehicle dynamics." Of course context matters. It's nonsensical for you to ignore it, as several others have told you as well.

There's "fast" and there's "too fast for conditions" . That's consistent with the dictionary definition, but you insist on this dogma that nobody, not even the NASCAR fans, are buying into.

So, are you ready to answer the questions?

In the context of racing cars, is 55 mph too fast for a flat, 90-degree downtown street corner with a radius of <75' ? Is 55 mph too slow for a superelevated highway curve with a radius of 27,000'?

Or put another way: Would you be impressed with a vehicle that could do the former? Would you think that the latter is a good example of performance?

Surely it can't hurt you to directly respond to two such straight-forward questions, as I have to all of yours.

[PenelopePitstop]

Read the whole sentence. You said "...no matter the course, no matter the degree of difficulty, no matter the banking, no matter the radius, no matter the vehicle dynamics." Of course context matters. It's nonsensical for you to ignore it, as several others have told you as well.

Really? Using the full context of your answer, there is nothing that makes 56mph slower than 55mph.

So, are you ready to answer the questions?

In the context of racing cars, is 55 mph too fast for a flat, 90-degree downtown street corner with a radius of <75' ? Is 55 mph too slow for a superelevated highway curve with a radius of 27,000'?

Or put another way: Would you be impressed with a vehicle that could do the former? Would you think that the latter is a good example of performance?

Surely it can't hurt you to directly respond to two such straight-forward questions, as I have to all of yours.

55mph is slower than 56mph in every scenario you mentioned. Do you not agree?

[PenelopePitstop]

Just an ironic development:

I was invited to attend my first NASCAR Cup race this morning - at Martinsville, the slowest oval course on the Cup schedule.

Coupled with my only Indycar race of the season, the Indy 500, I'm now completely confused as to which will be the faster of the two. 55mph is faster than 56mph, or is it the other way around? Turn13, can you explain?

[Turn13]

55mph is slower than 56mph in every scenario you mentioned. Do you not agree?

I think context matters, but I would agree that 56 > 55, if it makes you happy.

Now will you answer the questions?