Name the Year

[Novi-]

That these words were uttered: "The critics say the cars are too much alike, the rules need changing and Indy is a proving ground that doesn't prove anything. Are these fair judgments?"

[Unser>Andretti]

1962

http://books.google.com/books?id=TuEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=The+critics+say+the+cars+are+too+much+alike,+the+rules+need+changing+and+Indy+is+a+proving+ground+that+doesn't+prove+anything.&source=bl&ots=bXrTwFy6v7&sig=Ut9Tgpj6aCdaoeLSiE9dQOrHknQ&hl=en&ei=gMnATMP4LZDMngfq7JWSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20critics%20say%20the%20cars%20are%20too%20much%20alike%2C%20the%20rules%20need%20changing%20and%20Indy%20is%20a%20proving%20ground%20that%20doesn't%20prove%20anything.&f=false

However a similar statement was made in the early 1930's as well

[Novi-]

The last sentence: "Turmoil might be a better word" is just as true today as then.

No matter how much things change they still remain the same.

[Mario4ever]

That these words were uttered: "The critics say the cars are too much alike, the rules need changing and Indy is a proving ground that doesn't prove anything. Are these fair judgments?"

1962. Wow...I had no idea that TrackForum had been around that long!

[bduddy]

That these words were uttered: "The critics say the cars are too much alike, the rules need changing and Indy is a proving ground that doesn't prove anything. Are these fair judgments?"

1912-2xxx (with some variations)

[Spike]

No matter how much things change they still remain the same.

Perhaps.

Next question.

Can you name the year (or years) from 1912 - 2xxx in which the cars (and engines) really were the same?

[Novi-]

Perhaps.

Next question.

Can you name the year (or years) from 1912 - 2xxx in which the cars (and engines) really were the same?

There's no perhaps to it. Some people even then perceived things just like they were written in the article and to the uninformed it could very well appear that way. Just like today people believe what they hear but the informed have a better understanding of how and why IC got to where it's at today.

Technically none.

Non technically, then again it depends on what you mean by "the cars (and engines) really were the same?", the only time I can recall are the years Honda and Dallara are/were the only engine/chassis being used. Even then they aren't identical.

Why only '12 to 2k+? What about '11?

[Spike]

There's no perhaps to it. Some people even then perceived things just like they were written...

I didn't use the word "perception." I did, however, use the word "really."

Even then they aren't identical.

I didn't use the word identical.

Why only '12 to 2k+? What about '11?

I didn't say '12 to 2k. Go back and read my post again.

Just like today people believe what they hear...

Or believe they read something they actually didn't.

[FTHurley]

I didn't use the word "perception." I did, however, use the word "really."

I didn't use the word identical.

I didn't say '12 to 2k. Go back and read my post again.

Or believe they read something they actually didn't.

Oh great, Spike's off his meds again.

[impact]

Perhaps.

Next question.

Can you name the year (or years) from 1912 - 2xxx in which the cars (and engines) really were the same?

Although no two race cars are ever exactly the same, I would say that from 2006 through 2011, all cars (Dallara), and engines (Honda), are exactly the same. One could also go back to 1959 and 1960 when every car was some type of roadster configuration and every car was powered by an Offy.

[DaveL]

Although no two race cars are ever exactly the same, I would say that from 2006 through 2011, all cars (Dallara), and engines (Honda), are exactly the same. One could also go back to 1959 and 1960 when every car was some type of roadster configuration and every car was powered by an Offy.

This is incorrect. The Novis were around but not fast enough to make the 500.

[impact]

This is incorrect. The Novis were around but not fast enough to make the 500.

Sorry, guess I understood the question to mean cars that actually made the race. Be that as it may, we had, during the years 1959 and 1960 the following that did not make the race: A couple of Chevrolets, Maseratis and, of course, the Novis.

[DaveL]

Sorry, guess I understood the question to mean cars that actually made the race. Be that as it may, we had, during the years 1959 and 1960 the following that did not make the race: A couple of Chevrolets, Maseratis and, of course, the Novis.

In those years, and in all years until 1996, the free market dictated what cars would run at Indy. Teams were free to build their own cars, or buy someone else's. There was no pre-approval or licence nonsense. You showed up, passed tech, and attempted to qualify. It was simple. The fastest 33 made the show. The rest went home. Ideas that were failure went into the dust bin of history, and the successes spawned copycats and attempts to do better.

If only Offy powered Roadsters made the race in '59 & '60 it's because the Offy Roadsters were the fastest cars out of all that tried, not because some committee or USAC decided that those would be the only cars allowed. Ditto for the mid-80s when the March/Cosworths made up most of the fields.

As I wrote many times before, the aniticipation of sucess or failure that new cars brought each year was a big story in and of itself. Big stories bring fans. Fans bring value. Value brings sponsors.

[millrace]

In those years, and in all years until 1996, the free market dictated what cars would run at Indy. Teams were free to build their own cars, or buy someone else's. There was no pre-approval or licence nonsense. You showed up, passed tech, and attempted to qualify. It was simple. The fastest 33 made the show. The rest went home. Ideas that were failure went into the dust bin of history, and the successes spawned copycats and attempts to do better.

If only Offy powered Roadsters made the race in '59 & '60 it's because the Offy Roadsters were the fastest cars out of all that tried, not because some committee or USAC decided that those would be the only cars allowed. Ditto for the mid-80s when the March/Cosworths made up most of the fields.

As I wrote many times before, the aniticipation of sucess or failure that new cars brought each year was a big story in and of itself. Big stories bring fans. Fans bring value. Value brings sponsors.

I think you are 100% correct. However, this is exactly the challenge facing Indycar racing. How can it be relevant and captivating without a quest for speed? The cars would be going over 300mph with ease if these past concepts were still the case. As a fan, I'd love to see what would have happened. What would the racing look like now. But those days cannot come back. Not with the confines of current tracks and public safety. So the question bears repeating: what does it take for people to watch in awe of modern Indycars?

I think it takes a hell of a lot more than what is there now. Heck a 9 year old kid can fly a plane from a virtual cockpit sitting in his pajamas- why would he care about a car going 220?

[Spike]

One could also go back to 1959 and 1960 when every car was some type of roadster configuration and every car was powered by an Offy.

They may have all been the same "configuration" but they were not all the same car. Not even close. Likewise, while they (those in the 500 of those two years) were all powered by Offy engines, they weren't all the same boring, off-the-rack, detuned, sealed lumps like those the series has mandated for years.