Okay... I lol'd...Originally Posted by slkornya
Well, duh.
That's obvious.
NASCAR can't have fans that are psychotic, jealous, bitter, misguided losers that live in their mom's basement.
Doublewide trailers don't have basements.
Okay... I lol'd...Well, duh.
That's obvious.
NASCAR can't have fans that are psychotic, jealous, bitter, misguided losers that live in their mom's basement.
Doublewide trailers don't have basements.
Every race I run in is in preparation for the Indianapolis 500. Indy is the most important thing in my life. It is what I live for. - Al Unser Jr.
Everything I ever wanted in my life, I found inside the walls of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. - Eddie Sachs.
Items on that list are mostly why NASCAR has the numbers they do. Perhaps Indy Car should try some of the items.
-The Business Plan Bullet Point Disciple of INDYCAR
Yeah, but I heard the bodyguard cares not in the least about the fastest formerly ovalcentric, mostly open wheel rallying cry of 2012.Everything on that list would magically be manifest for IndyCar, too, if IndyCar had NASCAR's (lucky dog) numbers - all except for the "Racers unafraid to work in close", which, that just comes with slow fendered cars with bumpers, roofs and power steering. Massive popularity makes geniuses out of idiots, lets blind men see, and attracts every kind of fawning, enabling glad-hander under the sun.
I thought everybody knew that
Just ask Lady Ga Ga's secretary's assistant hairdresser's babysitter's stockbroker's bodyguard
BTW, I'm plenty devoted as a NASCAR fan but I'm of the opinion that DW's schtick is totally played out, FWIW.
No man can cause more grief than that one clinging blindly to the vices of his ancestors. - William Faulker
Yeah, I think they tried. Costs a lot more than you think, apparently.
NASCAR did it with $30 million a year for over 30 years, back when that was real money, and they did it first. Plus, they had the sharpest marketing minds money can buy, the kind that could literally sell you your own death sentence.
I think you'd play hell trying it now, even if you had a gazillionaire industry with nowhere else to go.
Besides, their example and that of USAC et al proves it works the other way 'round. Popularity buys popular drivers, etc., etc., so on and so on - Tony, Jeff, Jimmy and Ryan weren't that popular until they got there. Most NASCAR fans don't know where they come from, because most NASCAR fans just watch NASCAR.
"Each day well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well therefore to this one day for it, and it alone, is life"
~ Sanskrit poem attributed to Kalidasa, "Salutation to the Dawn"
Brian's Wish
How much of that Winston money did they pay ESPN to be such a dedicated partner?
-The Likes That Bill France Occasionally Made A Point With a Pistol Disciple of INDYCAR
Sorry to upset your conspiracy theory, but none, as such would have been illegal under the Tobacco Advertizing Ban from 1971.
BTW, you have heard of Marlboros, right?
None. That's the correct answer and the one I was looking for. One of my primary points from earlier in the thread was that NASCAR developed huge popularity in part by cultivating (a kind word) a relationship with ESPN in which ESPN was reciprocal. Indy Car has never shown the ability to do that despite having the most historic franchise and the largest attended stadium event in the world.
-The 101st Anniversary is in May Disciple of INDYCAR
We can add sexy cars to the list now....
How is this a sexy car? They reshaped the nose, yes I see differences but I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I follow NASCAR, not much but I do follow it and I don't get the deal why everyone is so excited about it.We can add sexy cars to the list now....
I'd rather have 10% of the world interested in the ICS than 50% of US that NASCAR currently has
The first several I agree with but what do you mean by the 2 I bolded? The sport has great personalities just nobody knows about it and the drivers have got bigger balls then there cup brethren IMO. I'm not going to respond to the last one because I already have seen your rants against the owners (not of which I agree with but I don't feel like beating that dead horse today) Also the leadership is taking chances but that same leadership doesn't have (or has been refused access) to the large warchest needed to bring about some of the changes that's been discussed
It's generating some exitement because it actually resembles the production vehicle...:
It's 'refreshing' to see that the on-track silouette will share some design elements of the actual namesake vehicle.
Yeah I read the comments but I still don't think the thing looks much like a street car.It's generating some exitement because it actually resembles the production vehicle...:
It's 'refreshing' to see that the on-track silouette will share some design elements of the actual namesake vehicle.
You answered your own question. Nobody knows about Indy Car personalities because Indy Car does note really know how to promote them and make them relate-able. Except Danica. And that is not because Indy Car did anything...it's because IMG did. Now that she is full time in NASCAR folks like Dale Jr., Jimmy and Tony are going to have to take a back seat for a while.
Until Indy Car drivers learn how to and are willing to RACE on 1.5 mile ovals, no they don't.
Is that a rant against the IMS folks/sisters who actually control the purse strings? Why would it have to be a 'warchest?' Wouldn't basic promotion and marketing skills be a step in the right direction?
-The Milk Guzzling In May Disciple of INDYCAR
It looks like a street car like the late 80s early 90s Cup cars did. Much closer to original. It would be impossible to make it 100% as all the approved cars run different wheel bases in street version. Teams would literally have to build all new chassis for each make.
The problem witl almost all street cars these days is all the designers have pretty much figured out what makes a good aerodynamic body. Since they all have to follow the same rules of wind and air they all look basicially alike. So a $9000 Kia looks more or less like a $59000 Cadillac or BMW
Faster than a bullet from a gun
He is faster than everyone
Quicker than the blinking of an eye
Like a flash you could miss him going by
No one knows quite how he does it but it's true they say
He's the master of going faster. -George Harrison
Form follows function... that looks like a sedan to me, not a race car. Nice commuter, but not as cool as most touring car racers, though
Wonder how it would match up to a DTM (on a road course) or a V8 SuperCar?
You stated yourself the "form follows function". DTM and V-8 Super's were not built to perform the same 'function' as the car above... making it difficult to compare 'forms'. Just sayin'...Form follows function... that looks like a sedan to me, not a race car. Nice commuter, but not as cool as most touring car racers, though
Wonder how it would match up to a DTM (on a road course) or a V8 SuperCar?
By 'function', you mean going fast on the same track on the same day?
I understand. An F1 car is faster than an IndyCar, too, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying them.
I guess nobody but Rocky Bobby really thinks NASCAR is fast. I didn't realize that before
Rocky Bobby?
Ricky?
Apparently you don't quite understand... I stated nothing about 'faster'... I mentined nothing about speed defining levels of enjoyment... You chose to include those comments.By 'function', you mean going fast on the same track on the same day?
I understand. An F1 car is faster than an IndyCar, too, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying them.
I guess nobody but Rocky Bobby really thinks NASCAR is fast. I didn't realize that before
I simply pointed out that your 'form follows function' statement seemed rather hollow once you followed it with the apparent 'apples-to-oranges' comparison between the NASCAR platform and DTM/V-8 Supers... which are totally different 'forms' designed to perform totally different 'functions'...
Let me know when DTM or V-8's are expected to run 95% of their season on ovals.
I'll leave the NASCAR bashing to the local pros...
Thought of something else that NASCAR has that Indycar doesnt.
Fans that think standing up for the enitre race allows them to see more of the race
DOWN IN FRONT A-HOLES!!!!!
?? Note - I'm the one who said "I understand. An F1 car is faster than an IndyCar, too, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying them." Meaning I appreciate that an abundance of ovals on the schedule requires certain considerations.
NASCAR's form follows the function of a sedan - as do the others I mentioned. The hollowness is subjective, based on one's personal perspective. As is the "bash", I guess. To me, it's neither an actual sedan, nor a purpose-built race car, but a compromise. Obviously, for its fans, a very happy one. And yes, everything is a compromise
If it's sexy to you, I'm not going to say you're wrong. I was just saying I don't care so much about the looks (the form), myself. Probably why I like the ugly cars
What is it about the NASCAR's form that is particularly designed to accommodate ovals (as opposed to, say, taking four little old ladies to church on Sunday)? You don't really see any, say, left / right offset, do you? Besides the driver's location, but that's just incidental, I would think, from copying the sedan form. I guess there is (or was?) something built into the chassis to keep it biased towards the right front corner being pointed down the track, but I admit I never learned if that was to turn left better or just to reduce drag on the straights.
Likewise, IndyCars don't seem to exhibit any special form to accommodate ovals, other than the bulkier bodywork. The biggest difference seems to be in an engine designed to operate at sustained rpm and momentum more than aggressive acceleration. Presumably, similar to the differences between NASCAR and SuperV8's, though I haven't researched it - that's why I asked the question.
I don't understand why people are so sensitive to the slightestly subjective comment regarding NASCAR that isn't abject praise. Or even to objective ones. I understand the danger of jealousy and envy, and believe me, we see the overwrought negativity directed towards every facet of IndyCar culture on an hourly basis here, but the (to me) over-reaction to even "normal" comments borders on superstition or something. Thought police
Last edited by Turn13; 01-27-2012 at 06:52 AM.
Lucy?Ricky?
You got some 'splaining to do....
...Always follow the money
NASCAR has fans that will shave their favorite drivers name on their back!
Ricky's boxer brother?Rocky Bobby?
Answers in bold
I understand you point but to me it still looks like a better shaped COT. Btw what other improvements will this car have? Central jacking system, single bolt hubs instead of 5 lugnuts? I can go on and on. They don't have to make the car out of carbon fiber and have every computer gizmo on the planet like an F1 car but it would nice if they could at least reach the early 90's in terms of technology
My original point in its simplest form...: I find it ironic that you can accept the "form/function" differences between F1 and Indycar platforms, but you fail to understand the "form/function" differences between 'stock car' and 'sports car' platforms.?? Note - I'm the one who said "I understand. An F1 car is faster than an IndyCar, too, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying them." Meaning I appreciate that an abundance of ovals on the schedule requires certain considerations.
NASCAR's form follows the function of a sedan - as do the others I mentioned. The hollowness is subjective, based on one's personal perspective. As is the "bash", I guess. To me, it's neither an actual sedan, nor a purpose-built race car, but a compromise. Obviously, for its fans, a very happy one. And yes, everything is a compromise
If it's sexy to you, I'm not going to say you're wrong. I was just saying I don't care so much about the looks (the form), myself. Probably why I like the ugly cars
What is it about the NASCAR's form that is particularly designed to accommodate ovals (as opposed to, say, taking four little old ladies to church on Sunday
Likewise, IndyCars don't seem to exhibit any special form to accommodate ovals, other than the bulkier bodywork. The biggest difference seems to be in an engine designed to operate at sustained rpm and momentum more than aggressive acceleration. Presumably, similar to the differences between NASCAR and SuperV8's, though I haven't researched it - that's why I asked the question.
I don't understand why people are so sensitive to the slightestly subjective comment regarding NASCAR that isn't abject praise. Or even to objective ones. I understand the danger of jealousy and envy, and believe me, we see the overwrought negativity directed towards every facet of IndyCar culture on an hourly basis here, but the (to me) over-reaction to even "normal" comments borders on superstition or something. Thought police
Your bolded statement above is telling... Please point out where I have shown any negativity towards Indycar or its culture within the context of my postings within this particular thread. I can see if one feels they are constantly having to defend themselves from what they saw as unfounded negative attacks, that they would take an overly 'offensive' stance towards anything they might deem as a threat, actual or perceived. I also find it ironic that many individuals who state a disdain for such actions are usually the one's quickest to employ the same techniques...
Case-and-point, your choice to include the "four little old ladies to church on Sunday" phrase to describe NASCAR's 'form'... Please note for the record that there is NO such use of veiled or snide comments towards Indycar, DTM, V-8 Super's or any other form of competitive motorsports contained in any of my posts that reside within this thread. But by stating that, I now become guilty of exactly what I have described... The rabbit hole can suck you in pretty deep if no one chooses to break the cycle... No 'smiley' or 'gomer' emoticon can change that. Just the poster.
Last edited by use2know; 01-27-2012 at 11:53 AM. Reason: too much verbage...
Ride-buying Venezuelans are unpromotable in the USA. It's NOT a promotion failure, it's a product failure.
But indycar will keep trying by bringing in lots of girl drivers.
And, did you read that Delana Harvick is 14 weeks pregnant? Bigger news than anything that will happen in Indycar this year unless someone is ... .
Heck Rubens Barrichello is too but that isn't stopping the road racer hobbyists calling the shots from bringing retiring F-1 drivers in and positioning them as second comings. If by product you mean only three ovals then I agree. Football fans in the USA rarely want a steady diet of soccer.
-The Hoping For More Evolution Disciple of INDYCAR
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks