Tweet
web page
Previously, TF member jjjanos was taken to task here for obvious and compelling omissions in an article that said it was time for TG to clarify the vision of the IRL. The countering opinion expressed here was that the vision was very clear. The IRL had created opportunity and excitement, as required: the rest is up to the fans and the individual teams.
The new article (link above) is seemingly a response to those challenges, but remains a seriously flawed attempt to re-write history. The rhetoric it depends on will be familiar to readers of 7G
.
The artcle basically says up front that there are two possible reasons for the existence of the IRL: either CART wasn't taking care of the oval racing fans, or it was all a sinister TG conspiracy without merit. The balance of the article attempts to refute the former reason, leaving the reader to conclude that the latter is all that's left.
I suggest that CART indeed did not properly attend to oval racing, and that the reasons for the IRL's existence are the plain and simple facts as declared- to control costs and provide a focus on the U.S. oval racing market.
Recent history supports this position, and doesn't require subscription to conspiracy theories (also known as "conjecture" and "hearsay" ).
The article states that "There is no evidence that CART would not have expanded its schedule to include new oval venues if the IRL had not been formed." There is also no evidence that they would- in fact, many of the recently added ovals appear to have been hastily acquired in direct response to the creation of the IRL.
In any case, there is little disagreement among knowledgable fans and professionals alike that CART's oval racing product has long been compromised by the road racing influence. Adding more events did not improve the quality and/or viability of CART's oval racing, especially in light of their apparent evolution in emphasis towards a business model based on competing with F1 and away from U.S. oval racing.
One only needs to listen to CART's best oval racers, like Michael Andretti, to know that they ruined the racing at Naz, Homestead, and even The Mile; that Michigan and Fontana were Handfordized into oblivion; and that oval racing at other venues became literally impossible (like TMS). This was the logical extension of an environment dating back to the mid 1980's.
In addition, the entire connection and appeal of CART's oval racing to that of the rest of the U.S. oval racing scene was completely broken. To paraphrase Railbird, the best justification of the IRL is the fact that Joe Gibbs even knows who Tony Stewart is.
These facts just don't support jjjanos' position that CART did everything an oval racing fan could have hoped for. If they did, there very well would have been no split, and the exodus of fans from Indy cars to NASCAR might have been mitigated.
As for the article's alternate conclusion that the creation of the IRL was a sinister plot to 'bust a union', again, the simpler solution (and one borne out by the facts) is that the creation of the IRL was, as declared, to ensure the viability of oval racing at the Indy 500 and beyond by controlling costs, focussing on the on-track product, and understanding the appeal of the U.S. open wheel oval racing market.
This simpler solution is supported by the facts that 1) these are exactly the things that the IRL has done and 2) these are exactly the things that CART failed to do. The success of one clearly defines the shortcomings of the other.
Simple
.
Previously, TF member jjjanos was taken to task here for obvious and compelling omissions in an article that said it was time for TG to clarify the vision of the IRL. The countering opinion expressed here was that the vision was very clear. The IRL had created opportunity and excitement, as required: the rest is up to the fans and the individual teams.
The new article (link above) is seemingly a response to those challenges, but remains a seriously flawed attempt to re-write history. The rhetoric it depends on will be familiar to readers of 7G
.The artcle basically says up front that there are two possible reasons for the existence of the IRL: either CART wasn't taking care of the oval racing fans, or it was all a sinister TG conspiracy without merit. The balance of the article attempts to refute the former reason, leaving the reader to conclude that the latter is all that's left.
I suggest that CART indeed did not properly attend to oval racing, and that the reasons for the IRL's existence are the plain and simple facts as declared- to control costs and provide a focus on the U.S. oval racing market.
Recent history supports this position, and doesn't require subscription to conspiracy theories (also known as "conjecture" and "hearsay"
). The article states that "There is no evidence that CART would not have expanded its schedule to include new oval venues if the IRL had not been formed." There is also no evidence that they would- in fact, many of the recently added ovals appear to have been hastily acquired in direct response to the creation of the IRL.
In any case, there is little disagreement among knowledgable fans and professionals alike that CART's oval racing product has long been compromised by the road racing influence. Adding more events did not improve the quality and/or viability of CART's oval racing, especially in light of their apparent evolution in emphasis towards a business model based on competing with F1 and away from U.S. oval racing.
One only needs to listen to CART's best oval racers, like Michael Andretti, to know that they ruined the racing at Naz, Homestead, and even The Mile; that Michigan and Fontana were Handfordized into oblivion; and that oval racing at other venues became literally impossible (like TMS). This was the logical extension of an environment dating back to the mid 1980's.
In addition, the entire connection and appeal of CART's oval racing to that of the rest of the U.S. oval racing scene was completely broken. To paraphrase Railbird, the best justification of the IRL is the fact that Joe Gibbs even knows who Tony Stewart is
. These facts just don't support jjjanos' position that CART did everything an oval racing fan could have hoped for. If they did, there very well would have been no split, and the exodus of fans from Indy cars to NASCAR might have been mitigated.
As for the article's alternate conclusion that the creation of the IRL was a sinister plot to 'bust a union', again, the simpler solution (and one borne out by the facts) is that the creation of the IRL was, as declared, to ensure the viability of oval racing at the Indy 500 and beyond by controlling costs, focussing on the on-track product, and understanding the appeal of the U.S. open wheel oval racing market.
This simpler solution is supported by the facts that 1) these are exactly the things that the IRL has done and 2) these are exactly the things that CART failed to do. The success of one clearly defines the shortcomings of the other.
Simple
.
Comment