Quote:
Originally Posted by BrentJackson
People are a little hard on IMSA here with regards to rules stability. The main reason for the desires to keep the cars as development-limited as possible is not NASCAR or a desire to be like them, but rather sports car racing in North America has a rather limited fanbase and racing's economic in North America in general suck terribly - NASCAR is starting to suffer, Indycar is in a deep hole, the ALMS was bought out so that it wouldn't go broke. America's economics right now don't make finding sponsorship for racing easy, and for a fairly high-cost series trying to get sponsors right now is really hard, even for the cheaper pro-am classes.
I would dare say that if the teams could work with budgets like they could once get, they would. If they had the funds to be able to engage in lots of development, I'm sure most of the teams would. But its just not on the cards, so its better to keep the racing as close as possible, hence fairly restrictive rules.
|
I don't know if it's about america's economy or about the public taste. I been following IMSA and Indycar since 1989 and watching Nascar too. Since mid 90s Nascar grow up so much that I think new generations don't know what was IMSA and Indycar in the past. And that's why there isn't enough money to run IMSA and Indycar as they deserve.
Don't take me bad, it's the same here, where we have the most popular series running crappy cars while we lost Sudamerican F3 and others good series are far to be what they were against the most popular. I think it's a generational change.