On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:39:37 GMT, Mark B <racefan1958 (AT) verizon (DOT) net>
wrote:



Isn't NASCAR's intention the same? Probably worse, because I think
it's more to protect the sponsors.

BTW, while I disagree with some on who's to blame for 25/8, I concur
that it was a bad thing. I remember good entertainment value in the
posturing between George ("...tradition...") and Craig ("We have the
drivers"). Kind of like that Penn and Teller movie where they keep
pranking each other. But 25/8 was like that point our mothers always
warned us about when someone's eye gets poked out.


Just watched Despain's show on the future of NASCAR. Fun watching the
USA Today guy point out the problems, while the NASCAR-can-do-no wrong
guys were saying "We have the drivers" - or the Stepford France
equivalent.

I don't think the split was fixable back in 1979 when it became open.
It comes down to who is going to field a race car, and what kind of
racing they're going to do. Once road race owners and technology came
in, and USAC decided to sever grass roots open wheel racing from Champ
cars, the die was cast.

Ken Plotkin

Ken Plotkin wrote:

Who was it that put in the 25/8 rule and why? That wasn't a CART rule
was it? So who's to blame? Looks like TG in order to kill any rival
organizations. Any other reason is a simple distortion of reality.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:22:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
<dont.even.spam.me (AT) myspam (DOT) org> wrote:


Kelly pointed out why Mr. George instituted that rule.

But does it matter? In those Mack Sennett pie fight movies, when the
passing cop takes one in the face, did it ever matter who threw that
particular pie? And if it did, is it the thrower's fault or the
goader's fault?

Nobody here is going to change their mind on this topic, so let's just
picture a 100 post thread with everyone getting red in the face and
the kill file vendors getting enriched.

The interesting topic these days is contemplating the consequences of
NASCAR's 35/8 pie. Even more intriguing because they're the only one
in the current pie fight, and they seemed to have won it without any
pies.

Ken Plotkin

The technology boogie man again. Let's go back to Flintstone mobiles.

I think the true gulf between us follows this line. You (and most of the
Earlers) seem to be dead set against any technology and I (and most of
usCartisans) love technology and want it as close to unlimited as possible.

Some people want 100% ovals, some 100% road courses, and some 75-25 on
either side. I would like to see 50-50.

No one wants any compromise. The only way we will see a revival is with
compromise. On the surface, it appears only one person is holding back that
compromise. We know who that man is.

Neither one of us is going to get what we want in the current environment.



"Ken Plotkin" <kplotkin (AT) nospam-cox (DOT) net> wrote

Ken Plotkin wrote:

Not exactly Ken in that there wasn't a rival series that is competing
and in reality locking out. What it is trying to do is create the one
flaw I ever saw in the old CART model in a slightly different way.
These guys now have so much tied up in buildings equipment ect that they
want to close the shop much like the franchise program did at CART. The
intent is to make it easier to sell these teams as businesses that can
build equity. Part of what you get when you buy the team is the owners
points ect which would make it more effective than starting a new one.
Ken that split had healed itself just about the time the lawsuit was
over forcing the speedway to let em race. USAC like most of the time
did it to themselves. The refused to adapt and refused to market or
either didn't know how to do either. A spridget just wasn't an
effective stepping stone for champ cars since aero and the rear engined
car. For proof remember what happened before the IPS? Why in the world
wasn't the IPS formed at the same time I'll never know. Anyone with
half a brain could see there would need to be something different to be
qualified to run at the new higher speeds with a totally different set
of skills needed. USAC refused to adapt. Anyone also with half a brain
could see the risks far exceeded the rewards for anywhere but Indy.
Someone back in the day was quite open about that. I want to say Bill
V, but can't be sure. Either USAC refused to market, or didn't know how
to market and frankly just didn't care cause Indy was doing just fine.
Only a half brain would think teams would take this forever.

What did happen with the 79 split was not so much of a split but a
change in direction and a change in control over everything but Indy.
It changed forever the route to Indy, but many just didn't want to admit
it. Those gave the excuse for the power play we saw in 96. The fact
that they created "I am Indy" proves they still have no clue at how to
market.

Ken Plotkin wrote:

Yes, they have. Thank you Tony George.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:59:11 GMT, Mark B <racefan1958 (AT) verizon (DOT) net>
wrote:

[snip]

They want to make it more like baseball and football: set teams,
nobody gets in other than by buying an existing team.

IMHO, that's different from what CART did. Franchises helped give the
money back to the owners who invested in forming the series. But at
the competition level, anyone could show up and run. Once you got to
the tech or qualifying line, it was even. Financial differences
before and after, but not in the races.

When NASCAR does become a closed monopoly like the NFL, I'll bet they
do not institute pensions, driver insurance, etc.

'79 was a culmination of the changing of the guard among car owners.
That evolved from the mid-60s onward.

Ken Plotkin

Ken Plotkin wrote:
F1 already is there. F1 has its problems, but I wouldn't say
franchises are part of the problem.

Nascar also has a similar financial program to CART's franchises, but
based on the previous year's performance. When you look at the weekly
Cup payout, stars may get $20-$30K more than a journeyman finishing one
place better. IIRC, there are bonus levels for the previous year's top
10, 25 and 35. (Contingency decals, lap bonuses, and qually bonuses
are the other reasons for uneven payouts.)

At least until recently, F1 had a performance requirement to stay
eligible for bonuses like free travel, even when the field was closed.
IIRC, the top ten constructors (20 cars) got bennies for the next
season. Dunno whether that rule is in place now.

I don't much mind Nascar's current top-35 guarantee. As hard as it is
to sympathize with millionaires, the Cup season must be an absolute
grind. An open field would effectively double the racing season from 36
races to 72 for the top 35 (like when preparing to qualify for the Indy
500 was an event in itself).

The testing limit is problematic for an open field, too; teams must
guess when preparing for some tracks, which is the wrong way to fill an
open field. I would ditch the Richard Petty rule, though.

Full franchising doesn't seem to be a huge problem for stick and ball
sports, so a few wankers getting their doors blown off every week
probably wouldn't damage Nascar. As Bernie Ecclestone said of Minardi,
"Someone has to finish last."

I preferred the old Cup provisional system that effectively guaranteed
fewer spots and more rotated the teams that got sent home based on
their points and previous usage of provisionals that year.

Ken Plotkin wrote:

I don't think it was so much that "road race owners" came into it, but
rather, when trying to figure out what was marketable or drew crowds
and advertisers, road and street racing proved successful. I don't
think
the ovals were doing too badly under CART either, or putting it
comparatively, the IRL did far worse with Phoenix, Michigan, and
Fontana than the pre-IRL CART days.

Technology is/was an inevitable issue for open wheel racing. I think
it was Parnelli Jones who said he'd take all the computers out of the
engines, which I think has some merit, though it
raises the question of whether the technology should evolve with the
times, or
be some sort of anachronistic form, locked in to limited evolution.

Grass roots (I assume you mean dirt and short track) open wheel
racing was probably severed more by mid engine cars than just
USAC disconnecting.

25/8 came from Tony George. There is no way one can "blame"
anyone but Tony for that, as no one else had the power to do it.
Don't pretend it came from anywhere else.

The IRL was created to put CART out of business, or at the very
least, force CART to change most of its operation to accomodate
whatever Tony was going to do with his 500. To pretend that
Tony wanted to share anything is idealistic at best, and
Tony's later attempts to put CART out of business only
reaffirm his negative intentions.

And once again, Carey and a handful of others rejoice in the
fact that "CART" is "out of business," while never coming to
terms with the fact that the CART premise lives on in "Champ
Car," and is moving in positive directions on all fronts, without
the Indy 500, or the "CART" teams that now live in the IRL's
invisible world. Obviously, the point made many times over
is that the IRL has evolved into most of the things that
"CART" was in 1995, when Tony created your IRL.

Comparisons remain between the IRL (or Champ Car)
today and the way things were in 1995. The IRL bears
the burden of proving how it has "improved' things. Champ Car
soldiers on, with alot of positives ahead, if not the ideal
connection between a good series and the Indy 500 that Tony
decided needed fixing.

The IRL today reminds me of pre-CART Indy, when the 500
was the race, and then the teams and drivers went underground
fot the rest of the year. In your high regard for the past, Ken,
I guess I can see why you like the IRL so much.

And for the record, I hope Champ Car can find some profitable
oval racing in the future, as I do enjoy that form as much as
any.

-Sterling

sterlingla (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
The primary forces behind CART in 1979 had been the dominant
Championship teams throughout the Seventies, exc Foyt. The only recent
switch from road racing was Jim Hall, who started in USAC in '78. The
others (Patrick, Fletcher, Penske, Gurney, McLaren, etc) had been the
core of the series for years.