What will we tell the next generation?

[Racing Truth]

This was prompted by THIS THREAD. It occurred to me that a '13 or '14 schedule MIGHT include Phoenix, Rd. America, Michigan and Fontana. Hmmm, let's first look at the '95 CART schedule:

Miami (streets), Surfers, Phoenix, LB, Nazareth, Indy, Milwaukee, Belle Isle, Portland, RA, Toronto, Cleveland, MIS, Mid-Ohio, Loudon, Vancouver and Laguna.

For fun, let's swap out Vancouver for Edmonton and Laguna for Sears Point.

By 1997, CART had added Homestead (replacing, market-wise, the street race), Rio, Gateway and Fontana, losing Indy, Phoenix and Loudon. In '98, Houston streets were added. Homestead, Rio and Gateway are gone.

Now, let's take a look at the '98 IRL schedule: None, but Indianapolis and (for now) Texas, remain. A few yrs. later, the series would add Richmond and Iowa. Only Iowa and Texas remain, with the POSSIBILITY of Richmond and Phoenix (a shared CART/IRL venue) returning.

Other discussed venues include Surfers and The Glen. I think the 1.5s are done after this yr.

Further consider that we now have turbo engines and it really raises the cliched question: What was 1996-2007 about, again? Have we not, through 2 warring series, ended up in a very smilar place to the one series (CART) in 1995?

How futile was this whole exercise? How pointless was it? Most of all, how do we explain this period (and explain it we must) to new and future fans? Why did we fight just to end up where we were, minus ratings and fans? In 1996-7, it all seemed so clear. Alternate visions, different cars, engines, etc. 15 yrs. later, that clarity is gone. Or maybe it really is clear: It really was a battle about nothing.

I hope someone, maybe multiple someones from ALL SIDES, writes an account of this or makes an ESPN Film on it. Those that led both sides and, with them, the fans, down this abyss need to be held to account IMHO. And maybe, we all could benefit from such a review, such a film. If it doesn't provide more understanding, it would certainly provide closure. Do we need that? Ask that question and his answer will be a resounding YES.

For it created two tribes out of one; two tribes that thought they were different but, other than the fringes, really weren't. To some extent, we are now one, but the old, hilariously pointless fissures lie just below the surface. Again, Randy has pointed to this multiple times. To an outsider like it must seem mad; even to us who followed it, it now seems perplexing.

I hate feeling this way just as a new season starts. I really am psyched about it and I would point out that those freaking out over only having 16 races this year ought to look at '95: CART had 17. But when I think about the long road still ahead and when I think about where we could be, I get angry. Angry at those who turned an interesting, if flawed, product into this. To accomplish nothing. Is there any other response but anger?

[Chris Paff]

Indycar will be lucky to make it to 2020 so explaining the split may not be needed.

There is still two tribes just one tribe has walked away from the sport due to it not appealing at all to them and their interests. That is why ovals are struggling with attendance. There is nothing about the series that appeals to a fan of oval racing and RB has done nothing really to change that.

If you want to talk about anger, how about looking at my side that saw its perferred series get invaded by the road racing crowd to the point that it looks nothing like it once did and now looks exactly like the series that went bankrupt twice.

[TexManZero]

If I was telling this to my son, I'd say something like this (which is what I tell people when I talk about going to TMS for the first time): One time, your Grandad's company gave him some free tickets to go see IndyCar at Texas. I didn't know what to expect, but I wanted to see what it was about. The cars were cool and all, but let me tell you something. When the pace car got off the track and those cars started to go around, I darn near soiled myself with the thunder of those engines. They sounded like hornets coming around the track at a pace you could never believe son. The speed, the sounds, the smell of the ethanol, it was one amazing race.

If this is the last year for Texas and IndyCar pulls out: We went for a number of years and it was fun racing, but push came to shove from people who didn't know what to do with the sport. There were new cars and everything, but when IndyCar made the move to leave Texas Motor Speedway, I lost a lot of interest. You have to understand that the nearest race is over eight hundred miles away, and I never had the money to go to places like Alabama or Iowa. In the end, it was much more economical to keep following the Rangers and other sports closer to home.

Hopefully I wont have to end the conversation by saying something like: But yeah, there used to be more than the Colts in Indianapolis.

[martyrothrules]

Indycar will be lucky to make it to 2020 so explaining the split may not be needed.

There is still two tribes just one tribe has walked away from the sport due to it not appealing at all to them and their interests. That is why ovals are struggling with attendance. There is nothing about the series that appeals to a fan of oval racing and RB has done nothing really to change that.

If you want to talk about anger, how about looking at my side that saw its perferred series get invaded by the road racing crowd to the point that it looks nothing like it once did and now looks exactly like the series that went bankrupt twice.

Went bankrupt twice with a direct competitor that raced at Indianapolis.

No direct competitor now and they race at Indianapolis.

It's like comparing apples to cumquats.

[filmlightingguy]

Chris is now using Disciple's line. How quaint!

[Joonyah]

If you want to talk about anger, how about looking at my side that saw its perferred series get invaded by the road racing crowd to the point that it looks nothing like it once did and now looks exactly like the series that went bankrupt twice.

If you want to talk about anger, how about looking at the other side who were mad that the keynote event was being used as a political pawn?

[Chris Paff]

If you want to talk about anger, how about looking at the other side who were mad that the keynote event was being used as a political pawn?

That keynote event did not belong to CART. They had zero right to it.

[Turn13]

That keynote event did not belong to CART. They had zero right to it.

They certainly helped build the series around it, though, and supplied participants that brought sponsors such as PPG, Chevrolet, and others to it.

If the series and the singular event that provided almost half the revenues could have established a pattern of mutually beneficial cooperation, it would have saved a lot of grief and loss when it comes to attracting and retaining talent, teams, and TV / venue contracts.

And of course 'talent' also includes 'domestic', too, and 'venues' has always included 'ovals'.

[Z28]

I like the idea of ESPN doing a special on what was, what happened, where it is now and where it will go. The problem is who they would ask to offer opinions and historical perspectives, Miller, Ed Hinton, Oero and a bunch of others who have staked out their own agendas since 1995 and even before. It wouldn't be worth paying any attention to.

Where I would go would be Dan Gurney and Pat Patrick to see what they saw leading to the formation of CART and what they wanted to have come out of it. I'd like to hear Paul Page and Chris Economaki relate how things evolved from USAC to CART through the formation of the IRL. I would like to hear from Roger Penske and Bobby Rahal about CART in the years when the IRL was formed. I'd like to hear from Leo Mehl about the attitude of the IRL towards CART in those early years. I'd talk to Michael Andretti and Al Unser jr about the drivers from the time they came up until they retired. But I would only talk to them about those specific areas.

Then after getting those people talking about those times to tell the tale from then to now, based on the perspective they had about their specific area and not try to find one person who thinks he has all the answers to all the other aspects and times. I don't want Pat Patrick or Dan Gurney's plan for 2015 because they have been far from the inside of the sport for so long. Page and Economaki offer great historical reference but have never had leadership roles to make those decisions. Penske has a vested interest in more than one side of the business.

I remember CART being formed and I've financed the sport since that time in the form of tickets, merchandise etc. and given my TV viewing time. If ESPN would be able to find people to produce a show who had my resume they could take the information learned in interviews and combine it with their knowledge to give a complete picture of the sport.

[Chris Paff]

I like the idea of ESPN doing a special on what was, what happened, where it is now and where it will go. The problem is who they would ask to offer opinions and historical perspectives, Miller, Ed Hinton, Oero and a bunch of others who have staked out their own agendas since 1995 and even before. It wouldn't be worth paying any attention to.

Where I would go would be Dan Gurney and Pat Patrick to see what they saw leading to the formation of CART and what they wanted to have come out of it. I'd like to hear Paul Page and Chris Economaki relate how things evolved from USAC to CART through the formation of the IRL. I would like to hear from Roger Penske and Bobby Rahal about CART in the years when the IRL was formed. I'd like to hear from Leo Mehl about the attitude of the IRL towards CART in those early years. I'd talk to Michael Andretti and Al Unser jr about the drivers from the time they came up until they retired. But I would only talk to them about those specific areas.

Then after getting those people talking about those times to tell the tale from then to now, based on the perspective they had about their specific area and not try to find one person who thinks he has all the answers to all the other aspects and times. I don't want Pat Patrick or Dan Gurney's plan for 2015 because they have been far from the inside of the sport for so long. Page and Economaki offer great historical reference but have never had leadership roles to make those decisions. Penske has a vested interest in more than one side of the business.

I remember CART being formed and I've financed the sport since that time in the form of tickets, merchandise etc. and given my TV viewing time. If ESPN would be able to find people to produce a show who had my resume they could take the information learned in interviews and combine it with their knowledge to give a complete picture of the sport.

Tony Stewart would be a good person to speak with to get the IRL side of things

[Spike]

They certainly helped build the series around it, though, and supplied participants that brought sponsors such as PPG, Chevrolet, and others to it.

Yep. They sure did.

If the series and the singular event that provided almost half the revenues could have established a pattern of mutually beneficial cooperation, it would have saved a lot of grief and loss...

Ah, but that's just it. The series and that singular event did establish a pattern of mutually beneficial cooperation - for many years. Someone stepped in, however, and disrupted all that when he tried to remake the sport in his own image. It didn't work.

[Spike]

Tony Stewart would be a good person to speak with to get the IRL side of things

Why? Tony Stewart simply made a quick stopover en route to his ultimate goal of NASCAR. He never intended to stick around any longer then he had to.

[BrakeEarly]

Start by telling them that a similar schedule, turbocharged cars and racing in Indy do make 2012 at all equivalent to 1995.

Follow up by telling them that the most overlooked, but critical parts of the White Paper in 1978 was that Gurney understood that it was impossible to retain public interest in the sport if the cost of cars, engines and development were cost and that the only way to survive and grow was to not participate in any unprofitable event. In 2012 Indycar races in front of fewer people than a ribfest with a whopping ten's of thousands watching on television. Every such event lights a fire to the revenues from the very few events that have sufficient attendance and viewers to make sponsorship revenues offset costs. In 2012 Indycar can't afford real engine and chassis competition. Indycar can't afford real relevant innovation. In 2012 Indycar has become the lower cost racing for hotdogs and peanuts that Gurney specifically wanted to avoid.

[Turn13]

The series and that singular event did establish a pattern of mutually beneficial cooperation - for many years.

Okay. If the series and that event had maintained a pattern of mutually beneficial cooperation, it would have saved a lot of grief and loss.

Fully mutually beneficial cooperation would have ideally been able to serve the greater constituency of fans that CART and IRL served apart. That was a greater number than they served separately.

Again, ideally - that level of mutually beneficial cooperation could have prevented the constituency from having split apart on the first place.

I realize it was tough - those fans are more susceptible to becoming NASCAR fans, and thereafter less attentive to / accessible by the rest of the motorsports community

[Chris Paff]

Why? Tony Stewart simply made a quick stopover en route to his ultimate goal of NASCAR. He never intended to stick around any longer then he had to.

Tony Stewart was the posterchild of the original IRL and was a major supporter of the IRL when the IRL was still the IRL.

How do you know what Tony Stewart's ultimate career goals were?

[Chris Paff]

I realize it was tough - those fans are more susceptible to becoming NASCAR fans, and thereafter less attentive to / accessible by the rest of the motorsports community

What is that suppose to mean?

What is wrong with fans liking NASCAR?

[Turn13]

What is that suppose to mean?

Just what it says. The fans that favored the IRL side of the sport were also, as a group, more likely to become NASCAR fans.

Not all of them, but more of them than, say, the unSplit whole, or of the CART side.

What is wrong with fans liking NASCAR?

Nothing, unless you're a competing series. NASCAR delivers what their fans want to see. Their fans, and their participants, are more loyal, less likely to complain, less prone to division, diversity, and dissatisfaction, than are those of other series - F1 and IndyCar, for glaring examples.

[Spike]

How do you know what Tony Stewart's ultimate career goals were?

It was widely known when TS arrived on the scene he was headed for NASCAR. Don't act as though you're hearing this for the first time, Chris.

[Chris Paff]

Just what it says. The fans that favored the IRL side of the sport were also more likely to become NASCAR fans.

Go figure, we are like most American racing fans who like good oval racing and American drivers.

[Turn13]

Tony Stewart would be a good person to speak with to get the IRL side of things

Or the NASCAR side of things.

Go figure, we are like most American racing fans who like good oval racing and American drivers.

Enjoy.

Myself, I prefer the world's fastest, most exciting and competitive oval racing, which is what I find in IndyCar. The connection to the greater (and world-wide) history and context of the whole sport via The Indianapolis 500 is a huge bonus as well.

I don't find any of that in NASCAR, but that's just me.

[Spike]

Okay. If the series and that event had maintained a pattern of mutually beneficial cooperation, it would have saved a lot of grief and loss.

Obviously.

Fully mutually beneficial cooperation would have ideally been able to serve the greater constituency of fans that CART and IRL served apart. That was a greater number than they served separately.

That "greater number" is misleading. There was a fair amount of overlap for a time (in terms of viewership numbers) between the two camps that, when totaled, gives a false impression.

Again, ideally - that level of mutually beneficial cooperation could have prevented the constituency from having split apart on the first place.

The "constituency" didn't cause the split. All they could do was sit back and watch the madness at work.

[Chris Paff]

It was widely known when TS arrived on the scene he was headed for NASCAR. Don't act as though you're hearing this for the first time, Chris.

Exactly, there was zero interest in CART in USAC talent so NASCAR was the goal until the IRL came along. The IRL was formed to try to change that.

Everyone in know, knew Tony Stewart was something special before he even stepped into the Menards car. Too bad CART car owners did not care.

Same thing is happening today, history always repeats itself. Instead of getting someone like Kyle Larson into a Indycar, we get to watch Simona. Yet many on TF wonder why Indycar has popularity problems.

[Turn13]

Exactly, there was zero interest in CART in USAC talent so NASCAR was the goal until the IRL came along. The IRL was formed to try to change that.

The reason the series couldn't compete with NASCAR for talent was because of the general advantage in popularity: sponsorship revenues based on gates and ratings.

Everyone in know, knew Tony Stewart was something special before he even stepped into the Menards car. Too bad CART car owners did not care.

It wasn't that they didn't care, as much as they couldn't compete - especially when there are drivers with more preparation and backing overflowing from the F1 system.

Same thing is happening today, history always repeats itself.

It's not repeating so much as the conditions are still exactly the same - well, no, after the split they're even worse. NASCAR has an even greater advantage in popularity now. So does F1. One pulls talent away from IndyCar, the other pushes excess talent towards IndyCar.

The creation of the IRL, had it been more popular, would have been a solution, but since it effectively decreased popularity, it wasn't.

Instead of getting someone like Kyle Larson into a Indycar, we get to watch Simona. Yet many on TF wonder why Indycar has popularity problems.

I don't wonder. You seem not to fully understand, however

If merely adding Americans and ovals to the series guaranteed popularity, USAC would have never declined, and both USAC and WoO would have live TV contracts.

[Joonyah]

That keynote event did not belong to CART. They had zero right to it.

It didn't belong to Tony George either. It belonged to the drivers who risked everything to make it. It belonged to the fans that went faithfully every single year. It was made into a pawn in a power grab, plain and simple.

[Chris Paff]

It didn't belong to Tony George either. It belonged to the drivers who risked everything to make it. It belonged to the fans that went faithfully every single year. It was made into a pawn in a power grab, plain and simple.

Wrong, the race belongs to the Hulman-George family

[Joonyah]

Wrong, the race belongs to the Hulman-George family

In your opinion.

[Chris Paff]

In your opinion.

It really is not an opinion.

BTW: The first power grab came by the car owners in the fall of 1978. The resulting split started with them. IMS should have just banned those teams that ran CART from the very beginning. Bill France and Bernie E would have done that.

[Joonyah]

It really is not an opinion.

BTW: The first power grab came by the car owners in the fall of 1978. The resulting split started with them. IMS should have just banned those teams that ran CART from the very beginning. Bill France and Bernie E would have done that.

Bernie doesn't control the rules, he manages the commercial side. Bill France was a guy who went with the status quo technologically speaking and didn't look to the future.

The car owners had a gripe, USAC was inept, hence them going from sanctioning many races down to 1 every year.

[Turn13]

It really is not an opinion.

Depends how you define it. Yes, they own the name, the venue, and certain rights to it. But the greater event is a cultural one, and that by definition belongs to the fans.

For the cultural aspects of the race, the IMS heirs are effectively stewards, not owners.

[houstonracefan]

Go figure, we are like most American racing fans who like good oval racing and American drivers.

That is YOUR preference, Paff. Do not speak for me