Honor, blood and a brewing battle - The Aftermath of the Civil War by Ed Hinton

[Lemmy-Boy]

ESPN has a interesting series of articles written by "Ed Hinton" about CART-IRL civil war - 15 Years after it started and its aftermath. As a well respected journalist, Hinton pens the article from a pretty neutral point of view with plenty of juicy details. Part 1 is already up. Whether your a longtime CART or IRL fan, this a very good read.

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/columns/story?columnist=hinton_ed&id=5195237&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[e2mtt]

Interesting article. Looking forward to the next parts,

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ed Hinton is the greatest journalist covering racing today...and he gets it right....

[anthonyvop]

Ed Hinton was a NASCAR shill for years and consistently bashed CART/Champ Car whenever he could.

There is nothing in the articles that wasn't common knowledge among true fans. His own recollections of his thoughts on the subject back then is in political speak, un-truthful.

There are no true Motorsports Journalist working for any major or even medium size news portal. That is the nature of the business.

Bad mouth a series enough and kiss your credentials goodbye. I can attest to that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ed Hinton was a NASCAR shill for years and consistently bashed CART/Champ Car whenever he could.

There is nothing in the articles that wasn't common knowledge among true fans. His own recollections of his thoughts on the subject back then is in political speak, un-truthful.

There are no true Motorsports Journalist working for any major or even medium size news portal. That is the nature of the business.

Bad mouth a series enough and kiss your credentials goodbye. I can attest to that.

Tony..I have read you..and Hinton. I think Hinton just might a little more gravitas.....and he was on the money about all the BS that was going down....

[anthonyvop]

and he was on the money about all the BS that was going down....

That is true. It is also stating the obvious.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tony, if you notice a lot of people on this board only want to see one side of the obvious.....

[Bob Riebe]

Here is the continuation:http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/columns/story?seriesId=1&columnist=hinton_ed&id=5217415-- he is arrogant and biased but at least it give a different view of things.

I never thought much of Sports Illustrated racing coverage as they know less about auto racing technicals, that an average garage mechanic.

[MDS]

Apparently bullet trains full of "Change" aren't always good.... Maybe the President could learn something here

[e2mtt]

that's a really interesting article. A lot of things I never knew about, & some different angles to consider.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here is the continuation:http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/columns/story?seriesId=1&columnist=hinton_ed&id=5217415-- he is arrogant and biased but at least it give a different view of things.

I never thought much of Sports Illustrated racing coverage as they know less about auto racing technicals, that an average garage mechanic.

Ed Hinton though has been covering racing long enough to understand exactly what is going on. This has nothing to do with the cars really, it is a people story. People not getting along and realizing the damage they were doing to the sport we love. End blames everyone pretty much in the end, and I can live with that..although I think Ed's "kill em all, they all suck" approach needs a little more nuance and context.....

[garyshell]

although I think Ed's "kill em all, they all suck" approach needs a little more nuance and context.....


Ed Hinton would not know nuance if it came up and bit him on his back side. The guy is a sanctimonious, self serving, blow hard hack.

Gary

[EagleEye]

Ed Hinton is the greatest journalist covering racing today...and he gets it right....

He is very good friends with Tony George, and his bias shows in the article.

When provided a platform to present his ideas, TG failed (he never was a good speaker). He was upset that CART didn't listen, but it was his lack of message, ill prepared presentation and arogance that turned CART owners off. In short, it was his own fault. It would not be until the late 2000's that TG finally had the experience to understand and navigate the series, though by then it was too late.

He also is incorrect on AJ Foyt. Foyt was one of the original CART backers, with Gurney and the rest. He bolted when they refused to pay him appearance fees, and USAC stepped in to pay him those fees. They eventually paid Parnelli Jones as well, and his team raced in some USAC races with Danny Ongias onboard.

[MDS]

Yeah, its a biased and somewhat self aggrandizing take, but its nice to see some confirmation of what I'd always heard, that CART was trying to reconcile and the only thing Tony George ever offered was a demand for complete and total capitulation. He was played by NASCAR and those close to him, A.J. Foyt and others, who rubbed his back and too their fill from the family's coffers

I'm sorry, I know TG still has his defenders on this board but I firmly believe that Tony George started the split and drove it in some crazed self-delusional fantasy that all the damage he had wrought could somehow be fixed one day once CART/CC was dead, and nothing good came of it. He may have won his battle with CART, but he lost the war, and so did all of us fans.

[anthonyvop]

You know what is bothering me the most.

Since the split I must have attended a combined 40-45 CART/Champ Car/IRL events over that time and I can only recall seeing him at 2 races.

[garyshell]

You know what is bothering me the most.

Since the split I must have attended a combined 40-45 CART/Champ Car/IRL events over that time and I can only recall seeing him at 2 races.


Him? Hinton? No surprise if that is who you mean, he was too busy licking Bill France's boots.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

Him? Hinton? No surprise if that is who you mean, he was too busy licking Bill France's boots.

Gary

Well he was always at the head of the media lunch line at every NASCAR event I have ever been to.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He is very good friends with Tony George, and his bias shows in the article.

When provided a platform to present his ideas, TG failed (he never was a good speaker). He was upset that CART didn't listen, but it was his lack of message, ill prepared presentation and arogance that turned CART owners off. In short, it was his own fault. It would not be until the late 2000's that TG finally had the experience to understand and navigate the series, though by then it was too late.

He also is incorrect on AJ Foyt. Foyt was one of the original CART backers, with Gurney and the rest. He bolted when they refused to pay him appearance fees, and USAC stepped in to pay him those fees. They eventually paid Parnelli Jones as well, and his team raced in some USAC races with Danny Ongias onboard.

I don't recall TG looking good from what Hinton wrote. On the contrary, he portrays a guy who just doesn't understand the business he tried to dominate. He wasn't a pro IRL or pro CART guy in that article. I think he said both sides have their crosses to bear.

Hinton tells the history of it quite well, and if he is sympathetic to George, he makes it pretty obvious that what George did was suicide for the sport, so if that is sympathy, I would hate to see him mad at the guy.

As for him licking Bill France's boots, read some of his books. He was pretty critical of the situation with the safety and he never heistates to point out how Bill France Sr. essentially hijacked the sport.

[Mark in Oshawa]

"For those who think Hinton was a suck up or in favour of this mess, here is a quote from the story that occured in 1997:


"Each side, the IRL and CART, claimed by now that I was biased in favor of the other. To me, and to my editors, that was confirmation of my neutrality. The only thing I was firmly against was the damage to an American institution, the Indianapolis 500.

At one point in the war, I wrote a Scorecard item headlined, "A Pox on Both Their Pits."

At another point, some IRL partisans cornered me in a hospitality tent at Indy for a heated debate.

"Surely you'll admit," an angry George supporter said, "that this race belongs to him."

"I'll admit no such thing," I said. "Tony owns the track. But the Indianapolis 500 belongs to the American people. They're the ones who made it."

[Mark in Oshawa]

For those who think Hinton was a suck up or in favour of this mess, here is a quote from the story that occured in 1997:


Each side, the IRL and CART, claimed by now that I was biased in favor of the other. To me, and to my editors, that was confirmation of my neutrality. The only thing I was firmly against was the damage to an American institution, the Indianapolis 500.

At one point in the war, I wrote a Scorecard item headlined, "A Pox on Both Their Pits."

At another point, some IRL partisans cornered me in a hospitality tent at Indy for a heated debate.

"Surely you'll admit," an angry George supporter said, "that this race belongs to him."

"I'll admit no such thing," I said. "Tony owns the track. But the Indianapolis 500 belongs to the American people. They're the ones who made it."

Anyone see where he is showering George in glory here? I fail to see it.

He is making the VERY valid point that should be made that Tony George created the IRL to gain control of the race at his track and beyond from CART and here was the result. For better or worse, what Tony wanted to do was protect his race and in the end, he hurt it....and that is Hinton's point.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Another excerpt where Tony's indifference to the stupidity is manifest from Ed Hinton:

"What promised to be the biggest, broadest-based summit meeting of the war was scheduled for that September, in the Detroit offices of Herb Fishel, General Motors' racing director. GM, primary engine supplier for the IRL, had agreed to discuss the proposal of the CART suppliers, Ford, Honda and Mercedes-Benz, for a common engine formula that could begin technological reconciliation of the two leagues.

So here were chieftains from all these manufacturers, and the chief mediator present was Bill France Jr., chairman of NASCAR.

Only one mogul failed to show: Tony George.

The one man who could make the decision for reconciliation, as Roger Penske had said, didn't even come to listen.

When I heard George had skipped the meeting, I phoned France at home in Daytona Beach to ask how he felt about being stood up.

France was so nonchalant you could almost hear him shrugging on the phone. He didn't sound very disappointed.

"He had other commitments," France said, excusing George matter-of-factly.

That was a board meeting at Indianapolis Motor Speedway. How in the world, I wondered, could any meeting at Indy be more important than the Detroit meeting that could have affected Indy for years, even decades, to come?

But there were rumblings that meetings at Indy were becoming more and more vital, in that Tony George's three sisters, all heiresses to the Hulman & Co. fortune, were growing more and more uneasy about the hemorrhaging of family wealth into Tony's IRL adventure."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Another excerpt where Tony's indifference to the stupidity is manifest from Ed Hinton:

What promised to be the biggest, broadest-based summit meeting of the war was scheduled for that September, in the Detroit offices of Herb Fishel, General Motors' racing director. GM, primary engine supplier for the IRL, had agreed to discuss the proposal of the CART suppliers, Ford, Honda and Mercedes-Benz, for a common engine formula that could begin technological reconciliation of the two leagues.

So here were chieftains from all these manufacturers, and the chief mediator present was Bill France Jr., chairman of NASCAR.

Only one mogul failed to show: Tony George.

The one man who could make the decision for reconciliation, as Roger Penske had said, didn't even come to listen.

When I heard George had skipped the meeting, I phoned France at home in Daytona Beach to ask how he felt about being stood up.

France was so nonchalant you could almost hear him shrugging on the phone. He didn't sound very disappointed.

"He had other commitments," France said, excusing George matter-of-factly.

That was a board meeting at Indianapolis Motor Speedway. How in the world, I wondered, could any meeting at Indy be more important than the Detroit meeting that could have affected Indy for years, even decades, to come?

But there were rumblings that meetings at Indy were becoming more and more vital, in that Tony George's three sisters, all heiresses to the Hulman & Co. fortune, were growing more and more uneasy about the hemorrhaging of family wealth into Tony's IRL adventure.

Again....where is he favouring Tony?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Apparently I didn't know how to do the way of acknowledging Mr. Hinton's work properly. Starter has informed me of this, and I did it only to point out in his words where he proves that he isn't what his detractors had said he was.

I hold no issue with Starter's informing me of this, and the points are still valid.

[champcarray]

That's what I read, too. Both sides eff'd up, but Tony took it to the extreme so that all he won was "scorched earth."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Champcarray...he had such a poor way of communicating his "vision" that the only way to implement it was to just do it..and hope it worked. It didn't really work though did it?

[anthonyvop]

Again....where is he favouring Tony?

Ed Hinton.

He is now bashing the losers...Champ Car and Tony George.

[e2mtt]

He wrapped up his series with part 4 yesterday. Quite a read. I'd buy that in a book, fleshed out with with side stories & lots of pictures. Really quite sad.

Sports are supposed to be fun. They are something to get excited about, to enjoy, to cheer for. The whole story of the last 15+ years of Indycar & related series is one of disappointment, disagreement, waste, & regret. It sometimes feels like the most passionate fans left are the ones that hate the most.

[Bob Riebe]

Another excerpt where Tony's indifference to the stupidity is manifest from Ed Hinton:

"What promised to be the biggest, broadest-based summit meeting of the war was scheduled for that September, in the Detroit offices of Herb Fishel, General Motors' racing director. GM, primary engine supplier for the IRL, had agreed to discuss the proposal of the CART suppliers, Ford, Honda and Mercedes-Benz, for a common engine formula that could begin technological reconciliation of the two leagues.

So here were chieftains from all these manufacturers, and the chief mediator present was Bill France Jr., chairman of NASCAR.

Only one mogul failed to show: Tony George.

The one man who could make the decision for reconciliation, as Roger Penske had said, didn't even come to listen.

When I heard George had skipped the meeting, I phoned France at home in Daytona Beach to ask how he felt about being stood up.

France was so nonchalant you could almost hear him shrugging on the phone. He didn't sound very disappointed.

"He had other commitments," France said, excusing George matter-of-factly.

That was a board meeting at Indianapolis Motor Speedway. How in the world, I wondered, could any meeting at Indy be more important than the Detroit meeting that could have affected Indy for years, even decades, to come?

But there were rumblings that meetings at Indy were becoming more and more vital, in that Tony George's three sisters, all heiresses to the Hulman & Co. fortune, were growing more and more uneasy about the hemorrhaging of family wealth into Tony's IRL adventure."
I would say this shows CART's arrgance. from the get go, and attitude towards TG and Indy, was the greatest cluster-fu--, and it came back to give them their just rewards.
TG's failing was crapping on himself and what he started by changing it from what it was.

[veeten]

well, it looked like even Mr. George had finally came to realise just what was the real reason why the lack of american drivers was evident, for both series...

And now George acknowledged something monumental, something impossible to overcome, something that flashed the sign, "Game Over."


The USAC ladder system was impossible to restore because it no longer worked for Indy cars at all. It had become, in fact, a fine feeder system for NASCAR.


Through evolution, rear-engine Indy cars by now behaved very differently than front-engine sprint cars and midgets, which now behaved more like front-engine NASCAR cars.


"As far as having a feel for the way the cars drive, off the right rear, coming up through those series [of sprints, midgets and Silver Crown on ovals] -- [drivers are] probably more suited today towards a career path toward NASCAR. They seem to do better," George said.


The USAC system that had produced A.J. Foyt, Johnny Rutherford, Mario Andretti and all the Unsers for Indy was now churning out the likes of Gordon, Stewart, Newman and Kahne for NASCAR.

So George's quintessential intent for the IRL, bringing heartland Americans to Indy from the dirt tracks, was finished.


Any ladder system for Americans to Indy now must include a progression of rear-engine formulas.


For that, "We have a sort of disjointed, dysfunctional ladder system here in the United States," George said. "It's not as clearly defined as it is in Europe."


What was needed? He described a system America didn't have, and still doesn't, and probably won't have anytime soon:


"If we had a better single-seat, rear-engine formula ladder system to encourage and develop young American drivers from go-karts up through IndyCar [now the brand name of his series] to Formula One, there'd probably be a lot more American drivers. Not from the USAC sprint, midget, Silver Crown divisions, but American drivers nonetheless. Someone like a Sam Hornish or an Alex Barron who grows up with an orientation toward racing formula cars."


(Hornish, George's best American hope of the time, would of course eventually defect to NASCAR himself.)


At this point, I thought, "Game Over."


With one feeder system diverted to NASCAR, and the proper feeder system virtually nonexistent, just where was George supposed to get stellar young American drivers the public would embrace?


Out of the blue?


Maybe. Just maybe …

just goes to show what happens when you resist change, and this should've happened by the mid-70's. Unfortunately...

[champcarray]

While I thought the series was an interesting ready, I think Hinton passed over some key issues. For example, while Indy is mired in tradition, the fans of open wheel racing generally want change and innovation. Tony never seemed to understand that, throwing his family's money at a regressive vision of open wheel racing. And right down the toilet. He could have let the Brickyard 400 meet the desires of folks who prefer less sophisticated race cars, but no such luck: Tony wanted champ car racing to appeal to the same fans. It really doesn't work that way.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ed Hinton.

He is now bashing the losers...Champ Car and Tony George.

He bashed them then.....this isn't anything new.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tony was trying to fix something that couldn't be fixed. The fact is, OW racing with this type of car is much more popular in Europe than in North America, hence the number of top guys looking to Indy car if they cannot get a f1 ride.

Tony wanted to fix the problem? He should have brought back the roadster and banned the rear/mid engined winged race car as we know it....

[DBell]

Tony wanted to fix the problem? He should have brought back the roadster and banned the rear/mid engined winged race car as we know it....

Mark, I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, but this I don't. Bring back the roadster? Fine, but not at the expenses of making the rules more restrictive. I'm for opening the rules, not restricting them further. If someone wants to try build a better mouse trap using a roadster design, then let them. As long as a rear engine car could still be used too. Panoz tried it in sportscar racing with some success. I doubt it could be very competitive in OW, but if someone wanted to try it, then they should be able to. That's more in the spirit of what Indycar has been about until more recent times.

TG was a failure because he's a poor businessman. I think it's that simple. He was only able to do what he did because of access to the family fortune. Once that was taken away, he disappeared pretty quickly. With all TG had to work with, a good businessman would have found a way to make it work.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, but this I don't. Bring back the roadster? Fine, but not at the expenses of making the rules more restrictive. I'm for opening the rules, not restricting them further. If someone wants to try build a better mouse trap using a roadster design, then let them. As long as a rear engine car could still be used too. Panoz tried it in sportscar racing with some success. I doubt it could be very competitive in OW, but if someone wanted to try it, then they should be able to. That's more in the spirit of what Indycar has been about until more recent times.

TG was a failure because he's a poor businessman. I think it's that simple. He was only able to do what he did because of access to the family fortune. Once that was taken away, he disappeared pretty quickly. With all TG had to work with, a good businessman would have found a way to make it work.

Don't misunderstand me. I would have backed Tony if HE went for the Roadster because he wanted to continue the road to Indy through Sprint and Midgets. THAT was his "Goal" ostensibly. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the racing in 1994 that a little fiscal sanity and good marketing wouldn't have fixed. Now, where we are, the roadster is a dead conversation of course.

[Bob Riebe]

Tony was trying to fix something that couldn't be fixed. The fact is, OW racing with this type of car is much more popular in Europe than in North America, hence the number of top guys looking to Indy car if they cannot get a f1 ride.

Tony wanted to fix the problem? He should have brought back the roadster and banned the rear/mid engined winged race car as we know it....
He wanted to bring Detroit back, but rather than allow what D. Gurney fought CART for years about-- and lost-- allowing true production based engines enough inches to be competitive without being tunied to hand-grenade levels, George created a frankenstein farce that only was related to production engines if one had smoke too many joints.

At the same time rather than have chassis builder come as they willed, he created more sh-- for brains rules that drove them away.

Had his new formula actually allowed Chevy, Dodge and Ford to go head to head-to-head, CART would have been nothing quickly.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He wanted to bring Detroit back, but rather than allow what D. Gurney fought CART for years about-- and lost-- allowing true production based engines enough inches to be competitive without being tunied to hand-grenade levels, George created a frankenstein farce that only was related to production engines if one had smoke too many joints.

At the same time rather than have chassis builder come as they willed, he created more sh-- for brains rules that drove them away.

Had his new formula actually allowed Chevy, Dodge and Ford to go head to head-to-head, CART would have been nothing quickly.

He had no clue Bob. If ifs and but's were candies and nuts, we would all have a Merry Christmas. You say he wanted to bring Detroit back? He didn't do a very good job of even trying to do that. The reality of it is he has no clue on how racing worked, how it works and how it was evolving. His only two assets were access to the family piggy bank and the Indy 500....