Originally Posted by cecil98:
You forget that tracks like Texas and Charlotte drew crowds of over 100K back in the early 2000's.
I was at all three Charlotte IRL races in the late '90s, they had big crowds but never a crowd over 100k.
Originally Posted by illiNOISE:
Was this really a viable option? Indy Cars had been a rear-engine series for 30 years even at that point. Would the public have supported going backwards an entire generation with the car design? How much slower would the cars have been?
Personally, I don't think so. This is greatly simplified I realize, but CART I believe died with the American public being #1 series when Jeff Gordon won the inaugural Brickyard 400 after every CART team didn't want him. That victory at that track by that driver symbolized
WHY NASCAR became #1 after being a mainly Southern thing for decades. And when Gordon became the top racing star of any series in this country it changed the entire landscape of motorsports in the U.S.
IRL I think was done when Tony Stewart left and went to NASCAR. I don't think any person can sit back and say with an open mind that Stewart made the wrong decision. Far more money, far more races, far more chances for acclaim, and it's worked out heavily in his favor. But his leaving Indycars to go to NASCAR was just an acknowledgement on how far NASCAR had passed Indycar by at that point.
This cannot be overcome overnight. IRL to me had absolutely fantastic racing in 2002 and 2003. These were the years when the early IRL stalwarts were still competitive and the first years of the teams coming over from CART with engine and chassis competition. Look at the winners those years, both teams and drivers. This led to nothing as a lot of those same teams disappeared in three years' time. You look at this year, and I think Indycar has had much better racing than NASCAR, and I'm not some homer for Indiana racing, I'm a resident of North Carolina surrounded by Junior fans and it's not like I can strike up a conversation on James Hinchcliffe or Josef Newgarden here with anyone except my dad.
It's definitely a long haul thing. NASCAR's down at the moment from past years, Indycar is up at the moment from past years, there's a lot of issues in NASCAR that the sanctioning body is not eager to fix because it would cost them money (race lengths, start-and-parkers, too many dates), and Indycar in contrast has taken to resolving some of the complaints to their series. Not all obviously (not enough ovals but that's because most major ovals are either owned by ISC or SMI), but you can't fix everything even if you want and definitely not all at once. We even have a USAC guy in the 500. Granted, Clauson did not do well, and racing like it is, there will be a lot of people out there that will think unfairly that Jerry Coons Jr. or Bobby East can't drive an Indycar because Clauson crashed in qualifying and wound up finishing 30th. I had to tear a new a-hole into a guy from Ireland pre-race on another racing forum that looked at qualifying speeds and thought Clauson should be pulled off track because he was as slow as de Silvestro. That's entirely not fair, but that's how racing works and that's a globally done thing on measuring development series by seeing how their "graduates" do, but the foot's in the door and we'll see how things look in a few years.
I don't care if you're NASCAR, Indycar, USAC, SCCA, Formula One, ALMS, Le Mans, etc. if you have bad leadership making bad decisions, it will detract the racing, no matter who you have in the cars or what they are driving, and I think Randy Bernard is the best leader American open wheel racing has had since before the CART/USAC split in 1979.