On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:11:00 -0500, David Gary
<...>
Well, except for Australia and Japan...
NASCAR is it's own deal; the comparison here is Indycar/F1. And in
terms of geographical spread of drivers, indycar may have a more
cosmopolitan spread than F1. Japan, Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Italy,
Mexico, Canada, England, France, USA... am I missing any? Ireland,
perhaps?
I will happily concede that F1 has the larger viewer audience; even in
the US, indycar barely manages a 3rd place, after NASCAR and NHRA.
Racing in general hardly ranks here in popularity with the other top
sports (football, baseball, basketball, hockey), and I think the only
reason NASCAR is starting to get in to the range is because of it's
absolute mastery of showmanship. CART, as a vehicle promoting
Indycars, is a frittered mess, esp. with the IRL taking away it's most
famous race.
But in terms of races, OK, F1 only repeats Italy. But I am not
convinced there is really as big a geographic spread as you suggest,
in sheer travelling distance, between the two forms of racing; mile
for mile, they both travel a lot. BOth are in Japan and Australia and
South America.
You know, you should check out Indycar before you knock it. It is a
great form of racing, completely different and complementary
perspective on open wheel racing, piloted by some of the best drivers
in the world.
<...>
Why wouldn't an F1 fan be interested in it? I mean, is it so obviously
an "inferior" form!? This discussion is getting down to the nitty
gritty, but I'll say it here: I like both forms equally. I like F1
because of the spectacle of it- 1 billion people watching 5 Million
dollar cars on parade, driven by the richest and among the best
drivers in the world. I like F1 like I like watching royal weddings,
with all the aristocracy on parade. It is fun to be a part of
something that big. I'd say F1 is about it's *** machines and about
it's celebrities, and then about exciting racing, in that order.
I like indycar for it's *lack* of pomp, for it's lack of
conservativism, for it's intense, close, driver-oriented racing.
Indycar is about it's exciting racing, powerful machines, and then
maybe somewhere way down the line it's "celebrities", in that order.
F1 has more intense starts, and fantastic pitts, but often, let's face
it, the racing is the procession everyone (even the racers) comments
about. Indycar has a better formula for exciting racing, emphasizing
closer racing, including drafting- undercar downforce allows for
closer racing and drafting, and cheaper, universalized cars allow for
more teams to be toward the front running, rarely a "procession."
Furthermore, Indy's shorter courses (more lapped traffic) and yellow
flags make the emphasis much more on driver decision making, figuring
out how to take advantage of the fantastically complex situations set
up by lapped cars, which often allow somebody with an inferior car to
get ahead through superior driving.
I think it is the FIA's very conservativism and stubborness regarding
a percieved "competitor" in Indycar that keeps it from picking up on
some of Indy's great ideas- and NASCAR's, who knows how to put on a
show, drive close, and deal out championship points better than any
of them. But then, F1 really is a completely different form of racing,
and it is obviously doing well enough. So the question- why so may F1
fans apparently feel animosity towards little 'ol indycar?
Americans aren't too interested in Indycar either, I am afraid- like I
said, it is the 3rd most popular form of racing here, and racing in
general doesn't begin to compare with football, baseball, basketball,
hockey... F1 doesn't even make any list here; most people in the US
haven't even heard of it, although plenty know of "Monaco" and the
term "grand prix."
Actually, there were some F1 races last year where the only passing
happened in the pitts, at least for anyone coming out of the race with
points. I distinctly remember a British commentator commenting that
he had followed this no-passing (outside of start and pits) trend for
three races in a row.
And anybody who loves racing should own all racing sims- NASCAR, ICR,
and F1. I developed my liking for F1 from F1 sims, which I bought
because I liked Papy's Indy sims so much, I wanted more, *any* sims!
I grew to like NASCAR too from the sims. The bottom line is, Iike any
form of racing where I think I am watching the best of the best of the
best going at it with each other- I wish F1 gave their best a bit more
of a chance to really go at each other. You see moments of it, and you
get to watch the purity of their driving, but rarely a wrestling match
of skill between drivers.
<...>
Ovals are a funny thing... almost an aquired taste. They certainly
make TV coverage easy. Anyway, I think they give Indycar a bad image
in a lot of the world, including here. You say "indycar" and people
say "oh, you mean those cars that drive in circles?"
Ovals definitely are below the aristocratic, golf-course-like pristine
courses of F1. Nevertheless, it would be something to see on oval on
the circuit- it certainly is a valid form of racing, and test driving
skills in a unique way that I would like love to watch a Schumacher or
Alesi caliber of F1 driver master.
