|
Post by Buck on Apr 17, 2019 7:39:17 GMT -8
The 24th...
|
|
|
Post by Buck on Apr 17, 2019 17:18:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Spin on Apr 18, 2019 6:55:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Buck on Apr 18, 2019 8:43:47 GMT -8
Marco's car revealed on the Today show...
|
|
|
Post by montybriscoe on Apr 18, 2019 9:47:39 GMT -8
I will play the devil's advocate here and say that what Roger Penske is proposing is not the TG 25/8 rule. Different times, different circumstances. TG used the 25/8 rule to lock out CART teams if they did not defect to his new toy series. What I believe Penske is proposing is locking in full time entrants who show up at every other event besides Indy. Protecting those entrants by making sure their sponsors are part of the 500. Not every team has a sponsor like Arrow. Some of the full time entrants, I would imagine, might take a substantial financial hit if they aren't in the 500. That could lead to some entrants withdrawing from the series leading to smaller fields at events that follow Indy. These teams are receiving very little money from Indy Car. The prize money stinks. Teams like Penske, Ganassi, and Andretti are propping the series up. If these teams go away, Indy Car would probably die and the 500 would cease to exist. 1996 was a completely different time. CART was flush with big money. Tobacco money, manufacturer money....there was an engine war and a tire war going on. Driver salaries were huge, lot bigger than today. CART didn't need TG or the 500 then. They were arrogant about it (cars and stars!). I feel strongly that had the CART teams gone to Indy as one-offs in 1996, they not only would have exposed the 25/8 rule as a joke and TG as a total and complete fraud, they would have killed the IRL off right there and then. But they chose to stage the US 500 instead. 😖 So, really comparing apples and oranges plus the split is over now.
|
|
|
Post by Buck on Apr 18, 2019 13:42:11 GMT -8
Andretti's on Fallon tonight...
|
|
|
Post by Spin on Apr 18, 2019 17:08:56 GMT -8
I will play the devil's advocate here and say that what Roger Penske is proposing is not the TG 25/8 rule. Different times, different circumstances. TG used the 25/8 rule to lock out CART teams if they did not defect to his new toy series. What I believe Penske is proposing is locking in full time entrants who show up at every other event besides Indy. Protecting those entrants by making sure their sponsors are part of the 500. Not every team has a sponsor like Arrow. Some of the full time entrants, I would imagine, might take a substantial financial hit if they aren't in the 500. That could lead to some entrants withdrawing from the series leading to smaller fields at events that follow Indy. These teams are receiving very little money from Indy Car. The prize money stinks. Teams like Penske, Ganassi, and Andretti are propping the series up. If these teams go away, Indy Car would probably die and the 500 would cease to exist. 1996 was a completely different time. CART was flush with big money. Tobacco money, manufacturer money....there was an engine war and a tire war going on. Driver salaries were huge, lot bigger than today. CART didn't need TG or the 500 then. They were arrogant about it (cars and stars!). I feel strongly that had the CART teams gone to Indy as one-offs in 1996, they not only would have exposed the 25/8 rule as a joke and TG as a total and complete fraud, they would have killed the IRL off right there and then. But they chose to stage the US 500 instead. 😖 So, really comparing apples and oranges plus the split is over now. But it is the same. When CART rescheduled the spring races to compete against the IRL's dates, war was declared. TG put in the 25 car rule for the same reason P&G want to, to protect the series regulars. You can debate the reason TG started the IRL, and whether it accomplished what he wanted (IMO it did not). But the reason for the rule is the same. They want to protect IndyCar regulars and protect their team sponsors. These two THRASHED the IRL for reserving spots for series regulars, now not only are they copying it, they even copied the number of provisionsals. 25. I've never been a fan Penske or Chip, and I find the irony of this to be helarious. Same with IndyCar fans complaining about the NASCAR charters, but are OK with this. I fail to see the difference between the IRL 25/8 rule, P&G's 25 regulars, and NASCAR charters.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Apr 18, 2019 18:11:40 GMT -8
I will play the devil's advocate here and say that what Roger Penske is proposing is not the TG 25/8 rule. Different times, different circumstances. TG used the 25/8 rule to lock out CART teams if they did not defect to his new toy series. What I believe Penske is proposing is locking in full time entrants who show up at every other event besides Indy. Protecting those entrants by making sure their sponsors are part of the 500. Not every team has a sponsor like Arrow. Some of the full time entrants, I would imagine, might take a substantial financial hit if they aren't in the 500. That could lead to some entrants withdrawing from the series leading to smaller fields at events that follow Indy. These teams are receiving very little money from Indy Car. The prize money stinks. Teams like Penske, Ganassi, and Andretti are propping the series up. If these teams go away, Indy Car would probably die and the 500 would cease to exist. 1996 was a completely different time. CART was flush with big money. Tobacco money, manufacturer money....there was an engine war and a tire war going on. Driver salaries were huge, lot bigger than today. CART didn't need TG or the 500 then. They were arrogant about it (cars and stars!). I feel strongly that had the CART teams gone to Indy as one-offs in 1996, they not only would have exposed the 25/8 rule as a joke and TG as a total and complete fraud, they would have killed the IRL off right there and then. But they chose to stage the US 500 instead. 😖 So, really comparing apples and oranges plus the split is over now. But it is the same. When CART rescheduled the spring races to compete against the IRL's dates, war was declared. TG put in the 25 car rule for the same reason P&G want to, to protect the series regulars. You can debate the reason TG started the IRL, and whether it accomplished what he wanted (IMO it did not). But the reason for the rule is the same. They want to protect IndyCar regulars and protect their team sponsors. These two THRASHED the IRL for reserving spots for series regulars, now not only are they copying it, they even copied the number of provisionsals. 25. I've never been a fan Penske or Chip, and I find the irony of this to be helarious. Same with IndyCar fans complaining about the NASCAR charters, but are OK with this. I fail to see the difference between the IRL 25/8 rule, P&G's 25 regulars, and NASCAR charters. TG's 25/8 was for one 'political group' against a competing 'political group'. The current 25/8 is the regulars vs. the irregulars. Considering the sponsorship world of IndyCar in 2019 - the regulars NEED to maintain their sponsorship. While the irregulars sponsorship and season are predicated on Indy - making the field is always a long shot for them. If IndyCar were running regular fields exceeding 30 cars at every event there would be no need for a 25/8 resolution. Remember, Roger knows what the cost of failing to qualify at Indy is all about - from hard experience.
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Apr 19, 2019 2:01:23 GMT -8
" I fail to see the difference between the IRL 25/8 rule, P&G's 25 regulars, and NASCAR charters. "
The IRL's was designed to be EXclusive, the P&G to be INclusive. One was negative, this one is positive.
Other than that, exactly the same. But yes, ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Spin on Apr 19, 2019 4:17:41 GMT -8
It all depends on which side of the fence you're on. If you're a fan of the elite, this is great. If you're a fan of the underdog, it smells just like the charters. And another piece of tradition gone forever.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Apr 19, 2019 4:30:46 GMT -8
It all depends on which side of the fence you're on. If you're a fan of the elite, this is great. If you're a fan of the underdog, it smells just like the charters. And another piece of tradition gone forever. If IndyCar were getting 35-40 cars at every event other than Indy it would be complete BS
|
|
|
Post by montybriscoe on Apr 19, 2019 6:13:03 GMT -8
Dan Gurney's White Paper and the formation of CART was done in part because a certain segment of car owners knew that open wheel could not revolve around one event and survive. I think you have to look after car owners who are prepared to support the series beyond the Indy 500. Look at some of the fields in the 70s post Indy 500. They were kind of pathetic.
As mentioned, if Indy Car had 28-30 cars per event, then this Penske proposal probably isn't suggested. This really only about protecting sponsors and promoters at other tracks.
|
|
|
Post by Spin on Apr 19, 2019 7:37:36 GMT -8
Yet here we are, 40 years later, CART failed, and Indy still makes up a substantial part of each team's income. And these two owners are still trying to make it just another race.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
On the bright side, as long as my driver's team has a charter, (ops, Top 25), I don't have to watch what's left of qualifying anymore. It's a done deal. 110 years of tradition, replaced by corporate welfare.
|
|
|
Post by montybriscoe on Apr 19, 2019 8:48:23 GMT -8
I go to Mid-Ohio to watch Indy Car every year. If they show up with 10 cars, then I am not going.
|
|
|
Post by ChemEng on Apr 19, 2019 13:17:47 GMT -8
This is not controversial and has no comparison to anything except NASCAR, and that is the way they should do it. Make the rule!
The easy answer is the old NASCAR rule of provisionals. The last row should be reserved for cars to be named at the option of the racing series. If a regular gets bumped out, then IndyCar puts them back in. If not, then it is an easy task to fill the last row based on bump day times. Yes, it opens the door for crooked deals and under the table money from non-regulars, but it solves the problem without people trying to relive 1996, and it is justified to maintain the commercial viability of the series.
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Apr 19, 2019 14:05:32 GMT -8
Yet here we are, 40 years later, CART failed, and Indy still makes up a substantial part of each team's income. And these two owners are still trying to make it just another race. Wash, rinse, repeat. On the bright side, as long as my driver's team has a charter, (ops, Top 25), I don't have to watch what's left of qualifying anymore. It's a done deal. 110 years of tradition, replaced by corporate welfare. CART would not have failed if not for Boy George's lockout of all but IRL cars at the 500.
|
|
kidrybot
Full Member
Dr. Jerry Punch's future son-in-law
Posts: 1,456
|
Post by kidrybot on Apr 19, 2019 17:16:11 GMT -8
IRL would have failed if CART teams showed up locked out any IRL startup teams. No collusion, no obstruction.
|
|
|
Post by Spin on Apr 19, 2019 17:22:47 GMT -8
Well it's not going to happen. That short episode is over.
Debating Tony's motives and CART's failure isn't going to go anywhere because they both ultimately failed. CART failed to be a series that rivaled Formula One after a flash in the pan. The IRL failed to be a career professional level for open wheel drivers, they still go to NASCAR.
It is what it is and we love it.
BTW, is anyone else going to Detroit?
|
|
|
Post by ChemEng on Apr 19, 2019 17:59:57 GMT -8
I agree there are two sides to this issue, but I think the "drama" aspect is a bit overblown in the modern era compared to the fragility of the overall sponsor situation.
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Apr 19, 2019 23:17:39 GMT -8
Well it's not going to happen. That short episode is over. Debating Tony's motives and CART's failure isn't going to go anywhere because they both ultimately failed. CART failed to be a series that rivaled Formula One after a flash in the pan. The IRL failed to be a career professional level for open wheel drivers, they still go to NASCAR. It is what it is and we love it. BTW, is anyone else going to Detroit? "Debating Tony's motives and CART's failure isn't going to go anywhere " yes, correct. So why bring it up in the first place?
|
|