The Luyendyk Limit

[call_me_andrew]

We'd all like to see a new track record at Indianapolis, but we also realize that it would be dangerous to have the cars going 240. However, safety technology has made many improvements since 1996 (SAFER barriers, HANS device, etc.). And if the DP01 was any indication, the 2011 car will be held to near F1 (if not superior) crash test regulations. Is it possible that saftey technology could catch up to possible speeds in the near future?

Also, Tony George mentioned something about a less dangerous catch fence a few years ago. Did he ever make any progress on that?

[fan-veteran]

I don't know answers to your questions. In 1991 the average pole speed was about 225 mph, the racing was good. In 1992 the pole speed went over 230 mph. As in 1995 and 1996. In these three cases a very serious accidents occured (including two fatalities). In 2003 the average speed again went over 230 mph, again very serious accidents occured (remember the 'saltomortale' by Mario Andretti) and the fatality of Tony Reena, both during private practises however.

So IMO - the average pole speed of 230 mph is the limit over which the danger becomes reallly high. Of course such reasoning is some kind dull, but nevertheless i think we don't need speeds of 240 mph at Indy. Ovals in Fontana and Michigan are another story.

P.S. Well, if TG would agree to allow special record breaking trials with some kind of racing cars with powerful boosted engines .... i'm for it :) , but this should be the personal rensponsibility of the driver and should not be included in some kind of racing.

[ShiftingGears]

I'm sure Indy, with modern technology properly implemented, can accomodate average lap speeds of 240mph without an enormous decrease in driver and spectator safety.

So long as they look fast. I'd rather slower cornering speeds, and faster speeds on the straight.

[MDS]

I don't agree with your idea that everyone would like to see a new track record. I don't really care about it. Sure it would generate some media buzz, but overall its not important to me.

[ykiki]

Safety question - Would Jovy Marcelo and Scott Brayton have survived their accidents with some of today's improvements (HANS, SaferBarrier)?

[PA Rick]

I don't agree with your idea that everyone would like to see a new track record. I don't really care about it. Sure it would generate some media buzz, but overall its not important to me.
If it is not important to go fast then why do we race?
Personally, I think you can track interest in open wheel racing with speed. When we started slowing down people didn't care as much.
Don't say it's close racing we want- If this was so then Spec Racer Ford would be the ultimate racing class.
Mak em safer so they can go faster.

[MDS]

If it is not important to go fast then why do we race?
Personally, I think you can track interest in open wheel racing with speed. When we started slowing down people didn't care as much.
Don't say it's close racing we want- If this was so then Spec Racer Ford would be the ultimate racing class.
Mak em safer so they can go faster.

If speed is your ultimate dream then say goodbye to all of the high banked ovals.

In 2001 CART was forced to cancel their race at Texas Motor Speedway after drivers complained of blacking out, dizziness, and blurred vision because of the 5-Gs they were pulling in every turn, and that was at 230 MPH.

If you want the drivers to be hitting 240 at Indy the only thing left on the schedule is going to be flat ovals, big sweeping ovals like Michigan, street road courses because the G-loads at tracks like Texas and probably Iowa and Richmond would be unbearable for most drivers.

I'm all for an opened up aero package, but speed is a number on a page.

[philipbain]

If speed is your ultimate dream then say goodbye to all of the high banked ovals.

I would love to say bye to all the "high banked ovals" - those tracks which is your usual 1.5 mile NASCAR cookie cutters as fast single seaters dont work on them without the ludicrously dangerous high drag / downforce aero pack that the IRL have run on these tracks for the last few years, single seaters should run on 2 types of oval, shallow banked 1 mile tracks (think Pheonix, New Hampshire, Nazereth-RIP) and big wide open super speedways (Indy, Mitchigan and i'd love to see them at Pocono!) as both of these types can be run in relative safety without the need to artificially slow the cars with a ludicrous and in my mind dangerous aero pack.

[MDS]

It's been said here and elsewhere that the real answer is higher speeds on the straights and lower speeds in the corners on the ovals. Road courses can stay the same. That way you get the higher speeds and safer racing. They may have a good point.

Of course it would mean bye bye to the aero stuff. That wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit.

NASCAR tried something similar back in early 2000 by chopping down the spoiler an inch, with the idea being speeds would be roughly the same or faster, but slower in the corner where the danger is. It made the cars a lot more difficult to drive, and NASCAR gradually, quietly reversed itself.

Speed is a number on a screen, just because the field is faster on an oval doesn't equate to a better race. The average person cannot tell the difference between a car zipping past them at 220 mph verse 240 mph.

[NickFalzone]

As much as it doesn't bother me on a race to race basis in the IRL, I think the longer term goal of any top car racing series should be improvements in speed. Safety is of top importance, I'm not going to disagree with that. But when you've got a series that's doing similar or worse speeds on the same tracks, 3,4,5 years in a row, your technology sucks and your series sucks. Breaking records, even if it's only by a quarter of a second or whatever, is a key part of racing. As the safety/designs improve, so should the speeds.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As much as it doesn't bother me on a race to race basis in the IRL, I think the longer term goal of any top car racing series should be improvements in speed. Safety is of top importance, I'm not going to disagree with that. But when you've got a series that's doing similar or worse speeds on the same tracks, 3,4,5 years in a row, your technology sucks and your series sucks. Breaking records, even if it's only by a quarter of a second or whatever, is a key part of racing. As the safety/designs improve, so should the speeds.


I disagree. If your theory held water, NASCAR would have been dead a long time ago.

Great speeds on straights, less on the corners would do the trick. Especially if the cars looked like they were being worked by the drivers. Your modern IRL cars never get sideways unless they are about to hit the wall. If people could see the drivers wrestling the cars while still flying down the straight, that would help.

I do know that what CART experienced at Texas is not far away if the IRL adds a bit more power and or is more libreal with chassis. Since THAT isn't going to be allowed, the formula needs to change or be frozen. Since we humans thrive on change, I guess a new package will be implemented but it is anyone's guess what the goals really will be.

[MDS]

I had this thought this morning: If high speed equals better racing why isn't the NHRA the most popular form of motorsport since it is undoubtedly the fastest?

[Chamoo]

I had this thought this morning: If high speed equals better racing why isn't the NHRA the most popular form of motorsport since it is undoubtedly the fastest?

It does receive quite high TV ratings and amazing attendence at events, usually both better then the average IRL race.

[SarahFan]

View Poll Results: A new Track record
A. 105 56.15%
B. 82 43.85%
Voters: 187. This poll is closed


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
08-23-2008, 09:16 AM #1
Ken
Smoothy Master

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,950
A new track record at INDY
A. I Would like to witness it sometime in my lifetime and believe it would increase interest in the I500

B. it's irrelavant and Unsafe for both fans and racers alike

Sponsored Links

08-23-2008, 09:33 AM #2
jkg
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,903
C. I'd like to see it happen, don't think it's irrelevant, but think its unsafe certainly for drivers and probably for fans (and thus shouldn't happen for the sake of the sport.)

08-23-2008, 09:41 AM #3
fastmaster26
Inside, Inside... Clear!

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 842

It isnt unsafe per say, the dallara as it is with ethanol fuel (power sucker) and the 3.5 liter honda engine (not a power sucker) AND all the downforce and drag built into car is simply too slow to get the job done.

Bear in mind, I'm not speaking from a negative point of view (ie "champcar was faster, etc) but in the literal sense... the car just isn't quick enough. The dallara is a safe car and could easily stand the speeds necessary to run a new track record at Indy.
__________________
Diehard fan of #10 Dario Franchitti and #11 Tony Kanaan

"Life is too short to be consumed by the circumstances that make us sour." - Helio Castroneves

08-23-2008, 11:43 AM #4
indycool
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,738
You've asked two questions with each choice:

1. I HAVE witnessed an Indy 500 track record in my lifetime.

2. Yes, it would increase interest in the "500."

3. Yes, it's relevant, but not so much anymore because we aren't going to see it again. It was much MORE relevant for "milestone" track records, i.e., 150 miles an hour, 200 miles an hour. But we won't see 250 and that's pretty much accepted now by folks.

4. Yes, it would be unsafe, period, to allow cars to go 238 at Indy again as Luyendyk did in 1996.
__________________
"The lunatic fringes on both sides need to be written off." -- stnky pete

08-23-2008, 11:54 AM #5
VonScratch
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,100
Who know what safety devices or power plants the future may bring. I am sure 50 years ago they probably couldn't imagine a car lapping indy over 200mph. That would be slow by today's standard.
If they can make a car safe to drive at new record speeds they will be able to make it run at new record speeds. I believe it is just a matter of time.

08-23-2008, 01:25 PM #6
speedmonkey
Typical White Person

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Evansville
Posts: 8,682
Originally Posted by fastmaster26
It isnt unsafe per say, the dallara as it is with ethanol fuel (power sucker) and the 3.5 liter honda engine (not a power sucker) AND all the downforce and drag built into car is simply too slow to get the job done.

Bear in mind, I'm not speaking from a negative point of view (ie "champcar was faster, etc) but in the literal sense... the car just isn't quick enough. The dallara is a safe car and could easily stand the speeds necessary to run a new track record at Indy.

Nonsense. In 2003 the pole speed was nearly 232 mph. They've slowed them down several times since then. Right now the engines are limited to 10k rpm. If they wanted to get it, they could easily do so with the Dallara.
__________________
I'm what Willis was talking about.

08-23-2008, 02:35 PM #7
indycool
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,738
Sure, they could get 232 if they felt comfortable with that speed with safety concerns. But it seems they want to keep 'em struggling to reach 230 by rules and that seems to be the safety benchmark for the time being.

08-23-2008, 03:27 PM #8
Threewide
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,167
239 MPH is just way too fast.

08-23-2008, 03:36 PM #9
Ren Butler
BACK TO MIS NOW!

Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gomer Vista
Posts: 13,915
I fear that, even if they can make 240 safe, it just won't be conducive to great racing.
__________________
Vote for change in 2012!

08-23-2008, 03:50 PM #10
Doyouloveit?
You're SOOO Money Baby.

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,991
Not sure they can get the cars insured if they go that fast. But, I'd love to see it.

08-23-2008, 04:04 PM #11
jackinbox
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 578
Totally irrelevant. I can remember being out at the track in 87 when records were being set. 217 didn't really look any different than 215. A few extra mph isn't going to make Indy a better race.

08-23-2008, 04:10 PM #12
debdrake
never was wannabe

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: too far gone
Posts: 4,176
Raise the fences and do it. As far as driver safety - well, it's the ultimate extreme sport, it's SUPPOSED to be dangerous. When the only risk is torn up equipment, you end up with a field full of rich boy (and girl) ride buyers.
__________________
"I'm not paranoid! Which of my enemies told you that I am?"

08-23-2008, 04:53 PM #13
pumpman
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 218
I would take close competition over a new record. The speeds cant keep climbing forever the races would become unwatchable and even more dangerous. If your sitting in one of the turns at Indy and a pack of cars goes by they all look fast even the Nascar cars. For me its all how are they in relation to each other. However there is a point when to slow is not good either. But 220-230 is pretty fast.

08-23-2008, 04:57 PM #14
drdisque
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: constantly changing
Posts: 1,140
I personally would like them to get back to the speeds they ran in 2002, where the front row is above 230 but not many other people. 230 makes a good "barrier".

Also, you will see a new track record at Indy in a few weeks (bike course).

08-23-2008, 05:23 PM #15
Z28
Reset your fuel,Go Go Go

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Crystal Lake,IL
Posts: 5,966
Not only do you need chassis and engines capable of safely running beyond 237-8 MPH but you need a deep field of drivers capable of running at speeds just under that. The top 12 of the field could probably run at the 240 mark if that's what people think will boost interest but you need another 30 who are capable of running at 235 or more because with your turbos and multiple manufacturers they'll all have close to the speed and be pushing to make the field. It's those drivers in that second tier who are going to be at risk driving beyond their capabilities.
__________________
"You can't arrest those guys, they're folk heroes"
"They're criminals"
"Well most folk heroes started out as criminals"

08-23-2008, 06:14 PM #16
BrentJackson
Not What You Expected

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: At Speed
Posts: 2,292
I think its entirely possible to get a track record again.

As for safety, yes the speeds can be a concern, but it's easy to fix that - take downforce out of the cars and make then go really, REALLY fast in a straight line. If they go 250-255 in a straight line but have to slow for 210-215 in the corners, you'd get the near lap record speeds, and better competition as guys would have to physically use the brakes to get through the corners and as such you'd have a challenge as to who could get on the brakes latest. And with the right aero, you could easily see guys fighting to get traction off of 2 and 4 then fighting to pass each other on the straight into 1 and 3.
__________________
"Couldn't find a car you liked in Germany?

No......couldn't find a speed limit I liked in America."

08-23-2008, 07:39 PM #17
Jeff Chiszar
... --- ...

Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,217
I have been blessed to hear Tom say those words many times in the 60's and 70's. I can tell you this much...the joint was just a tad less electric then when they come down for the green on race day. I mean completely unbelievable. It makes my hair stand on end just writing this.

I hope someday that many of you experience this in your lifetime.

[fan-veteran]

Remember the all times record set at Fontana in 2000 by Gil deFeran 241.428 mph average.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fontana+2000&search_type=&aq=f

Look at that Penske - it has the Handford device (as from 1998 onwards regulations demanded) and around 950 bhp. Imagine what would be the average speed without the Handford device.... Three years before, in 1997 a previous 'all times record' was set, again in Fontana, about half a mile per hour slower, the car was driven flat out all the way, achieving 240 mph at banked corners.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I had this thought this morning: If high speed equals better racing why isn't the NHRA the most popular form of motorsport since it is undoubtedly the fastest?


Heck...MDS you have that right on the money. NASCAR is the slowest out of IRL, NHRA and NASCAR and yet they are killing the other two in interest and ratings.

People have to realize that it isn't speed that makes great racing. It is close competition with interesting human interest in the drivers and teams. We care about certain people on the track then we will take an interest in how they do. One of the reasons I started to really lose interest in the CCWS was because of the number of meaningless drivers that started to show up. I realize you always have turnover in drivers in most series at the bottom of the field, but if you turn over so many that the fans are turned off....you are dead meat.

In the end, we watch racing for the cars...but we also watch for the stars and people we feel connected to.

[PA Rick]

I had this thought this morning: If high speed equals better racing why isn't the NHRA the most popular form of motorsport since it is undoubtedly the fastest?

But the cornering speeds are pretty slow.

[Chamoo]

But the cornering speeds are pretty slow.

I wonder what speed an NHRA Funny Car could do around a corner at Michigan or Texas? Serious question. Even somewhere like Indy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chamoo...email John Force and ask him after he did a burnout/mini pass on the back stretch at Charlotte at the second NASCAR Cup race in the fall. I suspect he made sure he had the beast going slow. Drag cars have floppy chassis to bend and not break with the stress of having all the power blowing through them. They have no suspension setup that would help a car corner because suppleness and getting power to the ground is their purpose.

IN short....you would be a dark spot on a wall if you tried to run a funnycar at any kind of speed through a flat corner at Indy.

[PA Rick]

A funny car is built to run about 30 seconds between rebuilds, 25 of it idling. I don't think there is any cooling system, only coolant in the water jacket to boil of during the run to keep the engine cool. Also massive quanities of nitromethane and methanol provide for some cooling.

[NickFalzone]

Heck...MDS you have that right on the money. NASCAR is the slowest out of IRL, NHRA and NASCAR and yet they are killing the other two in interest and ratings.

People have to realize that it isn't speed that makes great racing. It is close competition with interesting human interest in the drivers and teams. We care about certain people on the track then we will take an interest in how they do. One of the reasons I started to really lose interest in the CCWS was because of the number of meaningless drivers that started to show up. I realize you always have turnover in drivers in most series at the bottom of the field, but if you turn over so many that the fans are turned off....you are dead meat.

In the end, we watch racing for the cars...but we also watch for the stars and people we feel connected to.

I don't think that's quite it though in regards to speed. It's not about nascar vs f1 vs irl as relates to speeds, but progression of speed and technology within each series. In other words, I'm fine that the COT is not as fast as an indycar at IMS, I still like watching nascar and still like indycar. But within the series, i expect technology improvements to continue and ideally for speeds to increase as the technology and safety improves. I do not like the fact that irl cars are generally underpowered and slower on many of the same cart tracks, they should not only be safer, but faster in 2008 vs 1998.

[SarahFan]

IMO the possibility of a new track record at Indy every year should be in place...

*there is a pretty extensive thread on this elsewhere including a poll and interesting discussion......onyone wanting a link can drop me a PM

[Mark in Oshawa]

IMO the possibility of a new track record at Indy every year should be in place...

*there is a pretty extensive thread on this elsewhere including a poll and interesting discussion......onyone wanting a link can drop me a PM

Ken...I would agree with you but as we saw with CART at Texas in 97, there is a physical limit on some tracks and they found it first. I think at Indy that limit is there and I don't think there is enough advances in safety to advocate laps beyond 235mph at Indy. Should the current IRL car be faster? Maybe...I would settle for a better looking race car right now...

[Chamoo]

Ken...I would agree with you but as we saw with CART at Texas in 97, there is a physical limit on some tracks and they found it first. I think at Indy that limit is there and I don't think there is enough advances in safety to advocate laps beyond 235mph at Indy. Should the current IRL car be faster? Maybe...I would settle for a better looking race car right now...

A better looking car would solve the speed issue, because atleast a newer, better looking car would look fast.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chamoo...they go plenty fast now but yes...it might look fast.

I just think if a car isn't visually appealing that you are in danger of losing the fan who is a car guy as much as a race fan. Look no further than the DP's in Grand AM. Goofy looking cars that race well but the lack of crowds at their races says VOLUMES.

I think the DP-01 that Champ Car had as their spec chassis was a beautiful looking OW race car. I think the current IRL design looks like a throwback to the 80's with some awkward lines. I know it was slow on road courses until they did a lot of R and D with it and I do think how car fans feel about the cars being raced is part of the aesthetic appeal of racing.

[indycool]

For one thing, many tracks, not just Indy, have extended the catch fencing higher and the "overhang" out farther in connection with safety and added SAFER barriers.

For another, it's a "catch-up" issue. As far back as the early '70s is when the cars were slowed down, after the 33rd qualifier at Indy beat the previous year's pole speed. They let 'em run, they slow 'em down, as safety matters catch up.

But I doubt that Luyendyk's record at Indy is going to be broken for a long time.

[SarahFan]

Ken wrote-----
develop a formula where the competitors are flirting with a new track record every year

I know thats much MUCH harder than my typing it on my keyboard.... but that should be the goal when new chassis and engines rules are announced


Gary Wrote.....
What a REALLY, REALLY BAD idea!!!! What are you going to do when the cars eventually reach 250 MPH, then 300 MPH? Close all the lower grandstands? Move the fans off sight and have them watch by closed circuit TV? Nope, sorry that idea is a non-starter for obvious safety reasons.



Ken Wrote......
its a good thing the powers that be felt differntly the past century
I thought racing was about speed

indycool wrote........
*
The powers that be have NOT thought that throughout the past century.

Yes, it is the responsibility of teams and manufacturers to find speed. It is the responsibility of sanctioning body and tracks for safety. Read my previous post. For the past 30-plus years, they have been slowing down cars at Indy as teams and technology and manufacturers find ways to build speed back up. It is the nature of the beast today and has been for many years.

In drag racing today, when they're now running more than 300 miles an hour in the quarter, there is a safety concern being addressed about the length of runoff areas and I think we will see those extended very soon.


gary Wrote-------
No, thankfully they (and their insurance underwriters) realized that racing is not about ULTIMATE speed. Do you really want to see an Indy car going 300 MPH at 16th and Georgetown? Do you want your family sitting in the lower grandstands while it does?

Come on Ken, you seem like a reasonable person. But this idea is just plain STUPID. The drivers can't chase a new track record year after year. It would not be safe.



Ken Wrote------
first off ...ACTUALLY READ MY POST.....I said flirting with a new track record

and I don't come at this with closed eyes.... I was at Fontana when Gil set the closed coarse record.... and when Greg Moore Died.....

the highest of highs and the lowest of lows

second off.....Aries 238 was set prior to both wheel tethers and the SAFER barrier.... so 238 today would be safer than it was then..

and back to my saying flirting with a new track record...lets say it gets broken by 1 mile an hour every other year.... heck it would take 20+ yeras to get to 250... ...

and my biggest reason for advocating flirting with a new track record is the attention it brings to both the speedway and the I500....and don't think for a second that doesn't/wont rub off to viewership and sponsorship come raceday.....which in turn will carryover to the rest of the season....

give the casual fan a reason to pay attention throughout the month.... and Pole and raceday attendance as well as viewership will increase......period..

want to get LB and Chicago's ratings up to 2.0....then get pole day to 6.0 and raceday to 9.0....

IC makes a great point about NHRA..... speeds increase.... so adapt.... increase the run off

IndyCAR.... speeds increase.... raise the catch fence and increase the width of the SAFER.... install some plexiglass or netting.... I'm not sure the exact answer..... but don't dumbdown the formula


*again.... I'm sure developing a formula that flirts with a new track record with only increasing by small amounts is infantly harder than my typing about it.....that falls on the shoulders of engineers and rules makers much smarter than me..... but make no mistake.....a new track record at INDY would garner attention.... and the sport desperatly needs more fans... new and old to tune in for the first time, or back in now that the split is over

[SarahFan]

*the above is an exchange between IC, Gary and I on an earlier thread....it prompted me to post a poll at another busier forum that garnered nearly 200 votes that ran 56% in favor of a new track record...

I still stand by my comments......there is no question that 238 today is safer than 1996.....

[SarahFan]

Ken...I would agree with you but as we saw with CART at Texas in 97, there is a physical limit on some tracks and they found it first. I think at Indy that limit is there and I don't think there is enough advances in safety to advocate laps beyond 235mph at Indy. Should the current IRL car be faster? Maybe...I would settle for a better looking race car right now...


a better looking racecar (completly subjective) isn't going to garner an ounce of media attention ..... the DPO1 proved that

a new track record at Indy?.... well now that's a different story

[MDS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMeE9NAh60I

You can't write fastest man alive on a tombstone.

[Chamoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMeE9NAh60I

You can't write fastest man alive on a tombstone.

Why not?

[MDS]

Think about it for a few seconds

[Chamoo]

Think about it for a few seconds

Touche.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ken..a better looking race car will at least draw in someone who might be put off by the current IRL design.

I would love to see new records every year or so; and I know that the drivers and cars are safer now than they were a few years back...but I can tell you that at 238 I think we have reached a point where safety is not really something you can know about. Think about the physics of something going that fast and the law's of momentum and mass....and then realize an accident of a car turning a 240mph lap at Indy would be likely 10 times more catastrophic than a similar loss of control at 220. The forces that the engineers are being asked to cop with go up exponentially at speed.

I like fast racing...but I like GOOD racing a bit better. One of the most entertaining races I ever watched was 20 Formula Vee's on a half mile stock car oval going 4 wide lap after lap. Hell it wasn't fast but it was a real lottery of sorts for a lap or two while the guys who had it together got out and then it was 4 guys swapping the lead for the rest of the race.

Good racing at a very good clip beats reading how someone turned 245 and no one could get within 500 yards of him without losing control....

[FormerFF]

<SNIP>
I like fast racing...but I like GOOD racing a bit better. One of the most entertaining races I ever watched was 20 Formula Vee's on a half mile stock car oval going 4 wide lap after lap. Hell it wasn't fast but it was a real lottery of sorts for a lap or two while the guys who had it together got out and then it was 4 guys swapping the lead for the rest of the race.

Good racing at a very good clip beats reading how someone turned 245 and no one could get within 500 yards of him without losing control....

That's the real issue. Super high speeds are not conducive to good racing. The dynamic pressure brought on by cars going that speed make it very difficult for them to be close together, and at some point, you get to where a lot of distance goes by between the time the driver moves the wheel and when the car actually gets to where the driver intended, so running close becomes increasingly more dicey.

Besides, at some speed it's hard for the average spectator to follow the action.

[SarahFan]

Ken..a better looking race car will at least draw in someone who might be put off by the current IRL design.

...

problem is mark this isnt a cjicken/ egg or you say tomato i say tAmoto issue...


if you don't give them a reason to see the car they will never be in a position to determine whether they like the look of it

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ken...seeing a car turn a 245mph lap will be lost on me if the cars run a quarter mile apart due to aero push.

You obviously think the way you do but FormerFF has it on the money.

I said it before, if speed was the issue, Indycar would be 5 times more popular than NASCAR.....

[SarahFan]

Ken...seeing a car turn a 245mph lap will be lost on me if the cars run a quarter mile apart due to aero push.

You obviously think the way you do but FormerFF has it on the money.

I said it before, if speed was the issue, Indycar would be 5 times more popular than NASCAR.....

Mark.... read my post... I was adddressing your point about better looking cars Vs. a new track record...

i agree 100% close competive racing trumps a track record..and certainly trumps a better looking car (again that's subjective)....

but fast doesn't automatically equate to no passing follow the leader...

wanna take a stab at the amount of lead changes in the 2000 california 500.... the weekend Gil set the closed coarse qualifying record?

[SarahFan]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AaEKknerRaw

[Chamoo]

wanna take a stab at the amount of lead changes in the 2000 california 500.... the weekend Gil set the closed coarse qualifying record?

Two words...

Hanford Device

[SarahFan]

Two words...

Hanford Device

the same weekend that produced the closed coarse speeed record produced 56 lead changes.....

[SarahFan]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JK_ifywg

in 2003 Sam Hornish completed the fastest 500 mile race in history at California speedway..... the race featured 11 lead changes

*sorry couldn't seem to find any footage from California, above is footage from Michigan (almost identical track)

* and the same year produced Chicago's then closest 1-2-3 finish in racing history....