Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Incoming -- A new book on the split by John Oreovicz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Well, he did get Miller to write the forward.
    Last edited by Bruce Spencer; 03-18-2021, 12:15 PM.
    I'll see YOU at the races!

    Comment


    • #32
      I'm over the split. It was a very painful time that permanently damaged the sport. Years later, I realize we all missed a lot of good racing from one series or the other. Enough time has gone by that I now look forward to this book. There will be some pain, some nostalgia, some history and some opinions that I may or may not agree with. Hopefully it will be a good read.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Baulz View Post
        Good thing people know what he wrote before anyone has a chance to read it. I suppose it's better to only read things biased towards what you want to hear.

        I look forward to learning about the history leading up to what happened in the 80's and 90's.
        I agree with your last sentence entirely.

        With people claiming that the '96 Split was rooted within the '79 split within USAC, then I am certainly interested to read what kind of events have happened within AAA and USAC history other than the two I know out of the top of my head ('47 ASPAR & '50 Welch vs Shaw&Hulman) from '46 on to the moment of the split in '79.
        If that is written in a book by an author branded as biased, then at least because he appears to be one of the few who takes up the subject this deep and that far in history. I then have no choise but give him the benefit of the doubt.
        I will keep in mind that I'm gonna read a book written by an author wh si branded as biased within a forum that is predominantly used by people of whom a number are fan if not utterly fanatic about anything related with the 500 and on occasion some of those people having shown signs of blind fanatism towards the 500 and/or elements of the 500 that have made me shiver.

        Isn't that what they call: Calling the cattle black if such people brand another person as biased because of his opinions on what IMS at large has done?

        But I'll promise all of you this: If I have read the book and must conclude that it is indeed biased: then I will be honest enought to acknowledge and notify this within this very same thread.
        (If people still care about knowing such to begin with)



        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Baulz View Post
          Good thing people know what he wrote before anyone has a chance to read it. I suppose it's better to only read things biased towards what you want to hear.

          I look forward to learning about the history leading up to what happened in the 80's and 90's.
          Confirmation bias is the most insidious disease there is. And entirely preventable.

          It's great that Oreovicz is going back to cover ASPAR and USAC/CART, but those had little bearing on what came later, and shouldn't be viewed as an explanation for 1996. Different kettles of fish. The first two did have money in common, but that was about it for them.

          It really comes down to whether Oreovicz got to talk with Tony George and ask him the $64,000 question (not $64,000 really, but however many millions the IRL cost him). That would be new insight.
          "Versions of a story that are more tidy, compact, and camera-ready should generally be viewed as historically suspect." - Jackson Landers

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JThur1 View Post
            Confirmation bias is the most insidious disease there is. And entirely preventable.

            It's great that Oreovicz is going back to cover ASPAR and USAC/CART, but those had little bearing on what came later, and shouldn't be viewed as an explanation for 1996. Different kettles of fish. The first two did have money in common, but that was about it for them.

            It really comes down to whether Oreovicz got to talk with Tony George and ask him the $64,000 question (not $64,000 really, but however many millions the IRL cost him). That would be new insight.
            It would be great to hear more behind the scenes info from what happened in 1996 but I look forward to the story leading up to it. I was born in 78 so came late to the party, my memories of the sport start in the late 80’s and was oblivious to what happened outside of the awesome racing.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JThur1 View Post
              Confirmation bias is the most insidious disease there is. And entirely preventable.

              It's great that Oreovicz is going back to cover ASPAR and USAC/CART, but those had little bearing on what came later, and shouldn't be viewed as an explanation for 1996. Different kettles of fish. The first two did have money in common, but that was about it for them.

              It really comes down to whether Oreovicz got to talk with Tony George and ask him the $64,000 question (not $64,000 really, but however many millions the IRL cost him). That would be new insight.
              The USAC/CART split has great bearing, because if there is no split in '79, how things look in the mid '90's is presumably significantly different. Along with Tony Hulman's death and the April '78 USAC plane crash.
              I'll see YOU at the races!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bruce Spencer View Post

                The USAC/CART split has great bearing, because if there is no split in '79, how things look in the mid '90's is presumably significantly different. Along with Tony Hulman's death and the April '78 USAC plane crash.
                I'm not one of those that believes that either of those would have made any difference by that point, even though it's often pointed to by those hoping that USAC, Hulman or some combination of the two could have righted the ship and prevented CART from forming. To me, that is overly wishful thinking. The schism was already too deep, IMO, and the writing was already beyond being on the wall. Is there any real reason or evidence to believe those who died in the plane crash would have been concilliatory or willing to negotiate? Or would they have continued the USAC hard line? But, who knows?

                Some of those folks that believe CART only happened because of the plane crash and Hulman's passing are ones that believe that the formation of CART is what broke the "pipeline" of sprint and midget racers getting to Indianapolis, which is completely delusional.

                One thing I can't help but think is that Tony Hulman would have handled the whole qualifying mess in 1979 differently. But, again, who knows?


                "Versions of a story that are more tidy, compact, and camera-ready should generally be viewed as historically suspect." - Jackson Landers

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JThur1 View Post
                  I'm not one of those that believes that either of those would have made any difference by that point, even though it's often pointed to by those hoping that USAC, Hulman or some combination of the two could have righted the ship and prevented CART from forming. To me, that is overly wishful thinking. The schism was already too deep, IMO, and the writing was already beyond being on the wall. Is there any real reason or evidence to believe those who died in the plane crash would have been concilliatory or willing to negotiate? Or would they have continued the USAC hard line? But, who knows?

                  Some of those folks that believe CART only happened because of the plane crash and Hulman's passing are ones that believe that the formation of CART is what broke the "pipeline" of sprint and midget racers getting to Indianapolis, which is completely delusional.

                  One thing I can't help but think is that Tony Hulman would have handled the whole qualifying mess in 1979 differently. But, again, who knows?

                  JThur1, as one keenly interested in auto racing and particularly the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race and USAC racing at the time, I agree with your thoughts on the subject. Had Mr. Hulman still been around and the plane crash not happened, Gurney still would have written his white paper, as the same reasons that caused him to write the paper would have still prevailed. I can't imagine Mr. Hulman or the USAC brain trust that perished in the plane crash, being any more receptive to the car owners than their successors. As you say, the schism was already too deep. The road racers vs oval trackers divide was well established long before 1978. Also many people point to the fact that USAC banned rear-engine sprint cars as the break in the "pipeline".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The first time I can ever recall hearing anything about a second series was back in 1989. Loose talk about it being a good idea.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Here’s Dave Despain’s take from 1991...starts at about the 48 minute mark

                      http://www.honorflight.org/

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RacingPortaJohn View Post
                        Here’s Dave Despain’s take from 1991...starts at about the 48 minute mark
                        Thanks for the link. This is must-watch TV concerning this topic from the 46 minute mark to 55:15.

                        It's fascinating to hear Carroll Shelby predict that there will be spec cars at Indy by 1994 (46 minute mark) and Dave Despain's "what-if" discussion of IMS writing its own set of rules and then CART can decide to follow or not.

                        It's also very interesting to hear the concerns that there possibly was not going to be full field of 33 at Indy in 1991.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Ken-Paul View Post

                          Thanks for the link. This is must-watch TV concerning this topic from the 46 minute mark to 55:15.

                          It's fascinating to hear Carroll Shelby predict that there will be spec cars at Indy by 1994 (46 minute mark) and Dave Despain's "what-if" discussion of IMS writing its own set of rules and then CART can decide to follow or not.

                          It's also very interesting the hear the concerns that there possibly was not going to be full field of 33 at Indy in 1991.
                          Exactly, the Pro-Cart crowd likes to ignore that reality
                          "Paff has been closer to the mark than anyone will give him credit for."

                          Richard Kimble 11/18/2010

                          "Paff is far more right than any of you will EVER give him credit for.

                          As non politically correct and un IndyCar friendly as it is, it's the truth. "

                          SeeuInMay 12/29/2010

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Knock off the us-vs-them crap.
                            There's really no such thing as Gary the Moose, Sybil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Wow, Shelby's comments followed by Daly and Despain really sum up the situation beautifully, and years before it all hit the fan.
                              "He went into a tire barrier, which is certainly the nicest of all the barriers." -Bobby Unser, Denver '90

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Carroll and I use to shoot the shee-it once in awhile and yes, he did predict a spec series and I want to say the first time this conversation came up was in '84 with the March-Cosworth package. It was near perfection at the time and obviously worked. My attitude was "why not?" at the time. It was a proper, good-looking race car and the Indy 500 was about the names by that time. Only the gear heads cared about the cars more. This proper machine was appealing and just looked like an Indy Car should. I remember in Mid-May that year talking with someone, I don't remember who now, about promoting the names more publicly and...…….ahead of the time perhaps...……..giving driver identity to a car number, thinking of RP 43. Or the Wood Brothers with their 21. The Wood Brothers were more well known than half the field at Indy. Probably more. And when you thought Wood Brothers, you thought 21. Now Imagine that? How hard is that CART? And yet just the other day I read where that does not matter, yet again. And IndyCar wonders why it is a tiny, niche sport with probably less than half a million fans in America, and Scott Dixon is known next to nobody outside of racing and even some race fans get him confused with Larry Dixon.

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X