2012 Indianapolis 500

[Kitdy]

But why not race on ovals? I understand that the current cars are not safe on ovals but I see no reason why they couldn't in the future. As I said, I don't think a racing series can truly claim to be "the best" unless it shows it can master more than one track type. The same is true of the drivers. CART showed that many of the F1 drivers, while good on ovals, weren't the oval masters. Look at someone like Mears who was clearly the master of the oval in the 1980s. Furthermore, Europe had ovals and in the early days of Indy was very much involved with the 500.

Anyway, I don't seriously expect F1 to go to ovals. If nothing else Europe is perhaps even worse than the US when dealing with "not invented here". The inclusion of ovals is one of the reasons why I considered CART of the 1980s and early 90s to be perhaps a greater series than F1. They showed a level of versatility in ability that F1 cars simply lacked.

When I was much younger I used to try to put the drivers all clearly on a ladder in different series from best to worse. Surely F1 drivers were the best, then those open wheelers in the States, then the dudes driving the tanks in NASCAR... Then I learned that was silly and not how things worked. Juvenile Canadian patriotism played a role in my anti-American racing sentiments, as I'd clearly like to envision European drivers as being better than American ones, or ones racing in American series... Maybe unless a Canadian was good in an American series. Remember, this was when I was a kid.

Racing has many disciplines, oval racing is but one of them. I would not expect an F1 star to go kill it in IndyCar, nor the reverse, for many reasons. It is not 1965 anymore when it was easier to be faster in a wider variety of cars. Things are specialized to laser precision now. That isn't bad or good, it just is.

Why shouldn't F1 race on ovals? Let me count the ways...

The drivers going into F1 are all bred on karts, then junior open wheel formulae in Europe. There are no ovals for them to race on, and the sport has no (the Indy 500 does not count in my eyes) heritage on ovals. If not being able to race on an oval means F1 drivers or cars are not the best in the world, then I think you have a myopic view of racing.

Yes, IC guys are more versatile, running on a variety of ovals, road courses, and streets but this doesn't matter in my eyes.

The majority of the fanbase of F1 do not care about ovals, seeing as they are not North American.

The added design specifications required to make these cars run on ovals would add expense and would likely slow the cars down on other courses, so even if you ran them on a couple of ovals the cost and added design would be high.

The tires would need to be designed for both oval and road course running, which almost assuredly would lead to added cost and compromised design if the same kind of tire was used on both oval and road (we don't want another 2005 USGP).

There are probably many more reasons, but these came into my head easily.

The inclusion of ovals is one of the reasons why I considered CART of the 1980s and early 90s to be perhaps a greater series than F1. They showed a level of versatility in ability that F1 cars simply lacked.

If versatility is your criteria for greatness, then I suppose you are right. As I said, I now just see every racing series as its own unique thing. I think comparisons are never that easy to make.

Then again, if your criteria for greatest was most advanced cars, biggest budgets for teams and drivers, and the fastest cars on road courses, F1 would be considered "greater" or "better" than CART in the 80s and early 90s.

The one thing I will say is that I think F1 drivers are absolutely the fastest (does this mean best?) open wheel road and street racers in the world, as they race in the cars that are the fastest and most advanced on these tracks, and they are paid the most (capitalism works!). That is a comparison with other series I am willing to make.

F1 does not explicitly claim to be the best though they do everything but say it. They certainly don't have to run on ovals to prove to anyone or themselves that their drivers/cars are the best, whatever that means.

[culver]

Monza was another Grand Prix oval. Motegi isn't a GP oval but it is co-located with an F1 track. Your points are all valid but at the same time lacking ovals again means they are missing a major and historic part of racing. Heck the Italians were the original oval racers, just look in Rome

[faksta]

Really, there are so many awesome tracks which lose Formula 1 races or even never had one that adding even a single oval would mean the end of one more great piece of track design.

Not to offend you by any means, culver, but really, if there were F1 races on ovals I would be just watching them 'just because' - not to lose the action. I honestly tried to watch oval races in IRL and IndyCar several times, but I still couldn't like them. Maybe that'se because such tyre of track is not widely used in Europe and especially in Russia (only hyppodromes in winter) and in the States, on the opposite, ovals are everywhere you go - from midgets to IndyCar and NASCAR. They offer high speeds, but too much and easy overtaking that, for me personally, becomes a routine mixing up. But then again, after reading Zanardi's bio recently, I understood that ovals were way more demanding than I previously thought, let alone more dangerous. It's just a diferent form of racing, and combining tracks is a nice way to bring a unique spirit into IndyCar (OK, and NASCAR).

So, if you want a private opinion of someone from outside the American continent, I wouldn't like to see F1 racing on ovals - we have IndyCar for that, and to me the difference in series should still exist - it provides a good variety.

[Kitdy]

I dislike it when people slag NASCAR or any other oval drivers saying that all you have to do is turn left and it is very easy. Sure.

Tens of thousandths of a second matter on an oval; there is a reason that at the 500 lap times are measured to the ten thousandth or more commonly in mph.

faksta, did you watch the 500? The 500 for me is one of the races that I just have to watch. It is an event in circuit racing - like the Daytona 500, Monaco Grand Prix, or 24 Hours of Le Mans - that has such history and is at such a special track that it is worth checking out as a racing fan of any kind.

What I keep saying in my head thinking about Le Mans coming up is maybe a quote from a movie or something I invented, a man saying "This is Le Mans!" I was watching the race with my Dad and during the last 10 or so laps I was saying to him, one of these drivers has the chance not to make history, but to become part of it. The Indy 500, like the big races at the other events I mentioned is just something else - a race apart. I get a sense of epicness when it comes to those events. They are amazing events at special tracks.

Other really serious current auto racing tracks (not events) I would throw up there with the Daytona International Speedway, Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the Circuit de Monaco, and the Circuit de la Sarthe would be Talladega Superspeedway, the Nürburgring Nordschleife, the Silverstone Circuit, the Autodromo Nazionale Monza, the Suzuka Circuit, the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, and Sebring International Raceway.

Did I miss any?

[pimento]

Did I miss any?

Bathurst, for Australians. It's a race known by everyone, regardless of whether they have any interest in motorsports or not.

[faksta]

Le Mans is all I'm thinking about these days, with just a tiny bit more than 2 weeks to go Especially knowing that I'll most probably be there again.

I haven't watched any full Indy 500 - have partly back when our TV was showing it in circa 2008-2009, but didn't last the whole distance, due to the previously mentioned reasons. I acknowledge it as one of the world's most famous races, but it stumps me when people call it the 'race No.1 in the world' or 'the most important event in racing', as for me that is Le Mans 24 hours.

Speaking about the tracks, my absolute favourite is Spa-Francorchamps, but to those you have mentioned you could easily add Bathurst, Interlagos, Laguna Seca, Kyalami or Mosport, for example, while Sebring (as a track alone, not speaking about the 12h event) is not among the best ones.

[Kitdy]

Bathurst, for Australians. It's a race known by everyone, regardless of whether they have any interest in motorsports or not.

I am embarrassed to have missed that one.

Le Mans is all I'm thinking about these days, with just a tiny bit more than 2 weeks to go Especially knowing that I'll most probably be there again.

I haven't watched any full Indy 500 - have partly back when our TV was showing it in circa 2008-2009, but didn't last the whole distance, due to the previously mentioned reasons. I acknowledge it as one of the world's most famous races, but it stumps me when people call it the 'race No.1 in the world' or 'the most important event in racing', as for me that is Le Mans 24 hours.

Speaking about the tracks, my absolute favourite is Spa-Francorchamps, but to those you have mentioned you could easily add Bathurst, Interlagos, Laguna Seca, Kyalami or Mosport, for example, while Sebring (as a track alone, not speaking about the 12h event) is not among the best ones.

The Indy 500 isn't the No. 1 race, or the most important event in racing. It's the "greatest spectacle in racing!" Come on now! Check out the 500 next year on a stream, and while watching it, keep the transcendent quality of "epicness" in your head. Have it define your mindset.

I debated Inerlagos, and had LS in my head but forgot to add it. Sebring I agree on with you on. I have not seen any racing at Kyalmi. The courses I were thinking of I did not select for being the "best" tracks, or having the best racing on them (though they often do). I was more thinking of, an more intangible quality: epicness.

And thanks for the mention of Mosport; I absolutely love that place. I've been to the Grand Prix of Mosport in 2006, and 2008-2011, as well as a bunch more times for less prestigious events. What races have you watched there? I actually haven't seen too many races televised there as I am usually at the track and just catch hilights on TV or online after.

[faksta]

The Indy 500 isn't the No. 1 race, or the most important event in racing. It's the "greatest spectacle in racing!"

I was not referring to what yuo said, I've heard it from other people - read in the webs, heard in streaming etc.

And thanks for the mention of Mosport; I absolutely love that place. I've been to the Grand Prix of Mosport in 2006, and 2008-2011, as well as a bunch more times for less prestigious events. What races have you watched there? I actually haven't seen too many races televised there as I am usually at the track and just catch hilights on TV or online after.

I watched some ALMS racing there and a little bit of IndyCars (highlights), but I was amazed by the pictures and saw the track in GP Legends. Its hills are great!

Also, among the lesser known tracks, I'd add Oregon track (Palatov cars are tested there - check some video on YouTube), San Luis and the one they race GTs in Slovakia, forgot its name.

[culver]

Road America, Mid Ohio and Road Atlanta would be a few of the US tracks I would add to the list. All are GREAT circuits with long histories. One of the things that saddens me about F1 is how many of the historic tracks they don't use because they are chasing money in 2nd world countries. Then again, perhaps Indy wouldn't be a second rate series had they done that. Nascar is second rate technology but for better and worse it reallyis a first rate competition. I was thrilled to see the F1 drivers take note of the series and compete there. It helped show that those crazy rednecks really can drive

PS: I would love to see NASCAR fall so Indy could once again be the top of US racing.

[culver]

BTW, this post on Apexspeed is part of what I think makes the 500 so special (80 year old woman throwing her hat up for Kanaan! Well I was excited for him too).
ApexSpeed - View Single Post - First Visit to Indy500 advice

[Dino Scuderia]

I had a chance to drive Porsche Cayman around Atlanta Speedway(oval) last year and that sent my respect points for oval racers even more. I was in a light sports car, can't imagine a 3500lbs. beast going way faster than I was.

[culver]

Did you see the Top Gear episode where Hamster drives a NASCAR. It was fun. I think he also came away with the idea that even though the cars are in many ways very crude, it's not easy.

Speaking of crude, a few weeks back the NASCARs ran Mosport. The F1000 cars that I've had my hands on (just barely on and not driving) were running a support race. The F1000 cars were something like 15 seconds faster per lap.

[faksta]

I had a chance to drive Porsche Cayman around Atlanta Speedway(oval) last year and that sent my respect points for oval racers even more. I was in a light sports car, can't imagine a 3500lbs. beast going way faster than I was.

I suspect the heavier car would hold the road better? Let alone IndyCar's downforce.

[faksta]

Speaking of crude, a few weeks back the NASCARs ran Mosport. The F1000 cars that I've had my hands on (just barely on and not driving) were running a support race. The F1000 cars were something like 15 seconds faster per lap.

NASCAR-like stock cars are used even in European hillclimbing on curvy narrow tracks like St.Ursanne - Les Rangiers in Switzerland

[Dino Scuderia]

I suspect the heavier car would hold the road better? Let alone IndyCar's downforce.

Sure, even a NASCAR creates downforce too...but the speed they travel into those banked turns with the limited forward vision you have while in the turn is scary...and most of the time just inches from the guy in fronts bumper with maybe a car on either side of you. One little wrong move and it's a disaster.