Track Record Confusion? Not A Track Record.

[Sea Fury]

Show me where I brought politics into this discussion. Otherwise, continue hitting yourself in the head with that hammer, its pretty funny to watch.

There's plenty of it in this and many of your other "discussions."

Interesting that you left the word "hate" out of that challenge.

[Turn13]

I'm going to keep complaining about the complainers because the ones we have suck.

Until we get better complainers, what good are they?

[Turn13]

Unless, of course, it works both ways. Buddy Lazier......... cart champion.

I believe they recognize each series for their own, but all under one umbrella.

There were concerns that the fanbase was too stupid, but it was boldly decided they could handle it

[gonzo]

There were concerns that the fanbase was too stupid, but it was boldly decided they could handle it

[Doc Austin]

Okay, I'm going to believe that you think I am the coolest muppet on this board and you wish you could only be half as cool!

Come on you grumpy old man, you aren't rolling over that easy are you?

OK, but remember, you poked me with a stick. I was ready to let it go.

borudais won champcar races which have only become Indycar races retroactively for political correctness. It's not an Indycar championship if you didn't race in the Indycar championship, and when he was winning championships, they were champcar races in the series for the champcar championship, and they were very plain about that.

Now, years later, they magically become something else?

Back then, if you called any champcar driver an Indycar driver, that was considered an insult. It's champcar, bud, and don't you forget it. champcar's street fighting heros, champcar.....the world's most versitile drivers. Back then, they very clearly wanted their own identity. After all of that, it's a little disingenious to now want to be part of what they so clearly did not want to be a part of then.

I'm fine with cart/champcar having their own seperate history, because that isa exactly what it is, but to suggest they were part of Indycar retroactively, like those of us that lived through it did't see what really happened, I find that to be dishonest and insulting. Really, if you want to fool yourself that champcar champions were really racing real Indycars and winning real Indycar championships, that's fine, but it's not honest.

However, in a few years no one will care anyway. I am betting outside of a handful of oldtimers, no one can name the lone CRL champion, and that was a very ligitimate Indycar championship. That, and no one with a life has a reason to care, much like no one with a life in 2020 will care about any of this. They just won't be able to make any sense of it with two different Indycar champions a year and two different kinds of cars being Indycars, one of which could not race at Indianapolis, and half of the drivers who were part of the "Indycar" championship never raced in the Indy 500.

It's a mess. You can't mix oil and water, and that is what they are trying to do here.

[gonzo]

OK, but remember, you poked me with a stick. I was ready to let it go.

borudais won champcar races which have only become Indycar races retroactively for political correctness. It's not an Indycar championship if you didn't race in the Indycar championship, and when he was winning championships, they were champcar races in the series for the champcar championship, and they were very plain about that.

Now, years later, they magically become something else?

Back then, if you called any champcar driver an Indycar driver, that was considered an insult. It's champcar, bud, and don't you forget it. champcar's street fighting heros, champcar.....the world's most versitile drivers. Back then, they very clearly wanted their own identity. After all of that, it's a little disingenious to now want to be part of what they so clearly did not want to be a part of then.

I'm fine with cart/champcar having their own seperate history, because that isa exactly what it is, but to suggest they were part of Indycar retroactively, like those of us that lived through it did't see what really happened, I find that to be dishonest and insulting. Really, if you want to fool yourself that champcar champions were really racing real Indycars and winning real Indycar championships, that's fine, but it's not honest.

However, in a few years no one will care anyway. I am betting outside of a handful of oldtimers, no one can name the lone CRL champion, and that was a very ligitimate Indycar championship. That, and no one with a life has a reason to care, much like no one with a life in 2020 will care about any of this. They just won't be able to make any sense of it with two different Indycar champions a year and two different kinds of cars being Indycars, one of which could not race at Indianapolis, and half of the drivers who were part of the "Indycar" championship never raced in the Indy 500.

It's a mess. You can't mix oil and water, and that is what they are trying to do here.

So let me get this straight, a CART/Champ Car win is a CART/Champ Car win and if Bourdais has 31 of them they shouldn't be counted as Indy Car wins. Correct? How am I doing so far, are we on the same page? But if Helio has 26 wins and 6 of them came while racing in CART/Champ Car they should all count as Indy Car wins. Is that correct? And Dario has 10 wins while in CART all of them coming between 1998 and 2002, and you think those should count as part of his 30 Indy Car wins? Remind me again who is being disingenuous!

No? I'm wrong. So Helio really only has 20 Indy Car wins then, and Dario really only has twenty?

Which makes Dixon a more successful Indy Car driver then Dario cause he has 26 victories in the Indy Car series. Why isn't Dixon promoted as the most victorious Indy Car driver? See what I mean about consistency!

[Calhoun]

So why is the broadcast team announcing a new track record?

It's way more simple than you are making it. It's a new track record because the track length was different in 2003. I know you're not gonna like that answer, but that's the answer.

Same thing happened in 1997 when Omega became whatever "official" designation they had in CART. They remeasured all the tracks. Road America was no longer 4 miles long, it became 4.048. Pretty much all year the announcers had to qualify all statements about new track records with, "at the new track length".

In the case of St. Pete the length is close, but not the same. It just goes unsaid, "at this track length."

If you really want to complain about something, how about the track length at Milwaukee? It's been three different lengths in the last six years. I'm pretty sure the configuration of Milwaukee hasn't changed much over the last six years.

Or maybe Texas - the track record for the fastest time at Texas was set in a different year than the fastest speed was set. Huh? Yet it's a fact. Even AJ hisownself has questioned that one.

Some of you would have blown a gasket if you had been in the meeting I was in at Las Vegas. The fastest practice speeds on the first day were in the 224 mph range. Yet the maximum top speed the telemetry showed was 214, maybe 215. Some folks in tv said if they put telemetry in during the race it would make them look like idiots, showing the fastest speed as 214 and the lap speeds reported at over 224. That would make some viewers scratch their heads.

It's all about track length.

And keeping it simple. There was nothing sneaky or underhanded going on.

And let's not start quoting the record book. Start on page 8 and look at the date for Gordy's first win: 4/13/1965 at Milwaukee. Ever remember running at Milwaukee in April? I don't think so.

Probably too much rambling for such a simple answer, but it is truly that simple. Plus, I rambled because I'm not coming back and getting in a whizzing contest with you. You all can continue that for 5 more pages.

Carry on.

[Ernest Miller]

What Calhoun fails to mention is that it just doesn't matter if the track is now .048 longer or not. For example, using another sport, baseball. The dimensions of ballparks can and do change quite frequently to suit the players strengths on their teams. You don't keep diffrent sets of record books for the diffrent ballparks. You don't adjust record books because one player had to hit a 400 foot home run to dead centerfield while another one had to hit it 415 to the same place in the park twenty years earlier. IndyCar should follow this example. Ernest

[gonzo]

It's way more simple than you are making it. It's a new track record because the track length was different in 2003. I know you're not gonna like that answer, but that's the answer.

Same thing happened in 1997 when Omega became whatever "official" designation they had in CART. They remeasured all the tracks. Road America was no longer 4 miles long, it became 4.048. Pretty much all year the announcers had to qualify all statements about new track records with, "at the new track length".

In the case of St. Pete the length is close, but not the same. It just goes unsaid, "at this track length."

If you really want to complain about something, how about the track length at Milwaukee? It's been three different lengths in the last six years. I'm pretty sure the configuration of Milwaukee hasn't changed much over the last six years.

Or maybe Texas - the track record for the fastest time at Texas was set in a different year than the fastest speed was set. Huh? Yet it's a fact. Even AJ hisownself has questioned that one.

Some of you would have blown a gasket if you had been in the meeting I was in at Las Vegas. The fastest practice speeds on the first day were in the 224 mph range. Yet the maximum top speed the telemetry showed was 214, maybe 215. Some folks in tv said if they put telemetry in during the race it would make them look like idiots, showing the fastest speed as 214 and the lap speeds reported at over 224. That would make some viewers scratch their heads.

It's all about track length.

And keeping it simple. There was nothing sneaky or underhanded going on.

And let's not start quoting the record book. Start on page 8 and look at the date for Gordy's first win: 4/13/1965 at Milwaukee. Ever remember running at Milwaukee in April? I don't think so.

Probably too much rambling for such a simple answer, but it is truly that simple. Plus, I rambled because I'm not coming back and getting in a whizzing contest with you. You all can continue that for 5 more pages.

Carry on.

Thanks for all that, but the track was actually longer in 2003. It was measured at 1.806 miles versus the current 1.8.

But like you said, I don't want this to turn into a whizzing contest.

[racer14501]

For track record compare let’s wait till Long Beach, Turnone in long beach was made wider in 2007 for the first champcar standingstarts. The DP-01 track record in 2008is with the current layout at 1:06:902 with a track layout of 1.968mi. WillPower pole speed last year was 1:09:0649 with the same track layout.

[Frank Capua]

I'm going to keep complaining about the complainers because the ones we have suck.

Until we get better complainers, what good are they?

I guess we are being told to pick up our game...

[pitwall3]

[QUOTE=gonzo;2962015]So let me get this straight, a CART/Champ Car win is a CART/Champ Car win and if Bourdais has 31 of them they shouldn't be counted as Indy Car wins. Correct? How am I doing so far, are we on the same page? But if Helio has 26 wins and 6 of them came while racing in CART/Champ Car they should all count as Indy Car wins. Is that correct? And Dario has 10 wins while in CART all of them coming between 1998 and 2002, and you think those should count as part of his 30 Indy Car wins? Remind me again who is being disingenuous!

No? I'm wrong. So Helio really only has 20 Indy Car wins then, and Dario really only has twenty?

Which makes Dixon a more successful Indy Car driver then Dario cause he has 26 victories in the Indy Car series. Why isn't Dixon promoted as the most victorious Indy Car driver? See what I mean about consistency![/QUOTE]

Sound logic Muppit and too funny.