Tweet
Has the basis of even beginning talks of merging/joining/symbiosis/whatever been something that quite simply did not exist prior to 2004, that being left-and-right turn events? When it was all-ovals for IRL, notice that it was said that for road racing fans, there was CART. Once IndyCar had it as well, however, we are already hearing, even before cars arrive at St. Petersburg, talk of creating a balanced, both-sides-win series, etc, et al. Ideal, in many minds.
My theory is first that St. Petersburg, Watkin's Glen and Sonoma were absolutely required to be run successfully (especially Watkin's Glen, where open-wheel hadn't run for so long)...and that the ONLY way for this new situation to work without major headaches being caused by the "ovals are great and road courses suck vs. road courses are great and ovals other than Indy suck" debate is for the series to transfer what has been "the split" into an at least 60/40 balance between the two sides, if not 50/50. Granted, I would make that balance only by adding races rather than taking away any ovals, but the notion of trying to keep the road racing fans who can't stand ovals would remain all the same; i.e., an attempt at compromise.
My theory is first that St. Petersburg, Watkin's Glen and Sonoma were absolutely required to be run successfully (especially Watkin's Glen, where open-wheel hadn't run for so long)...and that the ONLY way for this new situation to work without major headaches being caused by the "ovals are great and road courses suck vs. road courses are great and ovals other than Indy suck" debate is for the series to transfer what has been "the split" into an at least 60/40 balance between the two sides, if not 50/50. Granted, I would make that balance only by adding races rather than taking away any ovals, but the notion of trying to keep the road racing fans who can't stand ovals would remain all the same; i.e., an attempt at compromise.