The 5 Principles Of The IRL

GP Racer · 9 Feb 2004, 22:17 (Ref:868840)

Has anyone read the 6 part series on the IRL entitled, Principles For Success? It can be found on www.indyracing.com Although not very objective, I found it interesting, and it gives some insight into the why TG created the IRL in the first place.

The 5 founding principles are:
1-Establish and maintain a governing structure that represents all constituates fairly and equitably.
2-Control costs associated with racing with a concern for safety and competition
3-Preserve and nurture the heritage of oval-track racing.
4-Provide opportunities for new sponsors, teams, and drivers to enter the highest level.
5-Bring Indy-style racing to new markets for both sponsrs and fans.

How close to TG's original vision, is the IRL today? Are the 5 principles still valid today? Will the addition of some road races help the series, or detract from it?

Any thoughts?

Dakota Hogback · 9 Feb 2004, 23:59 (Ref:868943)

Quote:

Originally posted by GP Racer
Has anyone read the 6 part series on the IRL entitled, Principles For Success? It can be found on www.indyracing.com Although not very objective, I found it interesting, and it gives some insight into the why TG created the IRL in the first place.

The 5 founding principles are:
1-Establish and maintain a governing structure that represents all constituates fairly and equitably.

The road racing constituency is well-represented, but the circle burners are conspicuous by their absence.

2-Control costs associated with racing with a concern for safety and competition.

Reasonable, but the flying car part needs some work.

3-Preserve and nurture the heritage of oval-track racing.

An oval track series that uses the SCCA as its feeder tree--how unique!

4-Provide opportunities for new sponsors, teams, and drivers to enter the highest level.

That worked ok until the old teams, drivers and sponsors came back.

5-Bring Indy-style racing to new markets for both sponsrs and fans.

Ok, they nailed that one.

How close to TG's original vision, is the IRL today? Are the 5 principles still valid today? Will the addition of some road races help the series, or detract from it?

Any thoughts?

USAC is now building a top rung for their own ladder. Do we now have a three-way split? I certainly hope so!

Hazza · 10 Feb 2004, 01:00 (Ref:868978)

Quote:

How close to TG's original vision, is the IRL today? Are the 5 principles still valid today? Will the addition of some road races help the series, or detract from it?

It mentions that in number 2 or 3, but that was based on if CART went belly up.

GP Racer · 10 Feb 2004, 01:47 (Ref:869002)

Not a 3-way split Dakota! Geez, wasn't the 2-way enough for all of us!

I heard USAC was looking to put there sprint cars on some of the smaller ovals. I can see your all for that!

So, I'm guessing you don't think this series has worked to well from your answers? If I remember correctly, you didn't like using the IndyCars on the ovals. Am I correct?

BootsOntheSide · 10 Feb 2004, 11:22 (Ref:869305)

Quote:

Originally posted by GP Racer

The 5 founding principles are:
1-Establish and maintain a governing structure that represents all constituates fairly and equitably.
2-Control costs associated with racing with a concern for safety and competition
3-Preserve and nurture the heritage of oval-track racing.
4-Provide opportunities for new sponsors, teams, and drivers to enter the highest level.
5-Bring Indy-style racing to new markets for both sponsrs and fans.

1 - Not really. Tony was quick enough to side with Toyota and Honda at everyone else's expense.

2 - The costs aren't being controlled effectively, as CART is now just as cheap to enter as IRL. 2004's field looks set to be the smallest yet. The safety changes being brought in for 2004 will hopefully make the difference in that area. There are limits to oval-racing safety of course.

3- This has been done, and well. We've seen a succession of thrilling races, and the traditional circuits are reatained whereas they may not have been without the series.

4- Not particularly in recent years, as the costs have gone up so extensively. Access and SAFR have entered from scratch, but CART has seen far more new entrants,a nd many are continuing without official funding.

5- A few new areas have been added, but I think NASCAR has been more successful in expanding its base towards the north of the country. CART made far more attemtps to add new territories, although not all were successful.

Dakota Hogback · 10 Feb 2004, 15:52 (Ref:869591)

Quote:

Originally posted by GP Racer
Not a 3-way split Dakota! Geez, wasn't the 2-way enough for all of us!

I heard USAC was looking to put there sprint cars on some of the smaller ovals. I can see your all for that!

So, I'm guessing you don't think this series has worked to well from your answers? If I remember correctly, you didn't like using the IndyCars on the ovals. Am I correct?

Actually, the USAC plan is to put the new SC cars on superspeedways--tracks 1.5 to 2 miles in length. It appears they are giving up on the "road to Indy" idea and doing their own thing. Maybe they've come to the realization that there is no place for them in the IRL or CART/OWRS, so they are building their own place. I really hope this deal works out.

If the split had never happened, or if it were amicably healed tomorrow, it wouldn't remove the need for what USAC is doing. The only way to keep short track open wheelers from going to NASCAR is to provide them with their own top tier series to aspire to. It's already been demonstrated that the formula car culture doesn't want them, (unless they agree to stop being short trackers) so why not provide a place within their own culture where they can excel and gain the recognition they deserve?

Being a NASCAR fan, (along with other types of racing) I welcome the USAC guys with open arms, but I have always gotten the sense that choosing between NASCAR and a unified OW formula car series is taking "plan B", whichever path they choose. USAC is getting ready to provide them with a logical "plan A".

If the IRL's plan was to replace the missing top rung of the open wheel oval ladder, they have failed miserably. I now believe that was never the plan in the first place. What they have created is a road racing series that for some strange reason has yet to run any road races.

I have nothing against road racing. I like to see a good road race once in a while. I just don't think it is possible to build a 50/50 road/oval series that will be populated 50/50 by drivers from both cultures. The only time Indy car racing ever had a 50/50 driver distribution was when it was halfway through the transition from being primarily an oval series to being primarily a road racing series.

I don't have a problem with Indy cars on ovals; I just realize that Indy cars on ovals is in no way related to anything else that runs on ovals.

Scrutineer78 · 10 Feb 2004, 22:37 (Ref:870020)

Quote:

Originally posted by GP Racer I heard USAC was looking to put there sprint cars on some of the smaller ovals. I can see your all for that!

Don't ever let anyone say you're slow. Riley Engineering is in the process of redesigning the Silver Crown cars to allow USAC to move the Crown cars to superspeedways. USAC has most under the guise they are making this move to allow the drivers more big track experience to make them more attractive to IRL owners.

However deep within the bowels of USAC Indianapolis, they are supposedly looking into recreating the "National Big Car" division. We all know what Big Cars are but apparently USAC has forgotten. This schedule will be a dirt and pavement series, as small as a quarter and as big as 2.5.

GP Racer · 11 Feb 2004, 00:34 (Ref:870117)

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota Hogback
Actually, the USAC plan is to put the new SC cars on superspeedways--tracks 1.5 to 2 miles in length. It appears they are giving up on the "road to Indy" idea and doing their own thing. Maybe they've come to the realization that there is no place for them in the IRL or CART/OWRS, so they are building their own place. I really hope this deal works out.

If the split had never happened, or if it were amicably healed tomorrow, it wouldn't remove the need for what USAC is doing. The only way to keep short track open wheelers from going to NASCAR is to provide them with their own top tier series to aspire to. It's already been demonstrated that the formula car culture doesn't want them, (unless they agree to stop being short trackers) so why not provide a place within their own culture where they can excel and gain the recognition they deserve?

Being a NASCAR fan, (along with other types of racing) I welcome the USAC guys with open arms, but I have always gotten the sense that choosing between NASCAR and a unified OW formula car series is taking "plan B", whichever path they choose. USAC is getting ready to provide them with a logical "plan A".

If the IRL's plan was to replace the missing top rung of the open wheel oval ladder, they have failed miserably. I now believe that was never the plan in the first place. What they have created is a road racing series that for some strange reason has yet to run any road races.

I have nothing against road racing. I like to see a good road race once in a while. I just don't think it is possible to build a 50/50 road/oval series that will be populated 50/50 by drivers from both cultures. The only time Indy car racing ever had a 50/50 driver distribution was when it was halfway through the transition from being primarily an oval series to being primarily a road racing series.

I don't have a problem with Indy cars on ovals; I just realize that Indy cars on ovals is in no way related to anything else that runs on ovals.

I still don't understand why USAC drivers are bailing to NASCAR, besides the money.

It seems the IRL is still the most natural progression for a USAC driver to move up to. Its still open wheel, and its on ovals. I mean, can USAC really come up with a series to keep there drivers from leaving for the fame and fortune of NASCAR? I find it doubtful...

Hazza · 11 Feb 2004, 00:59 (Ref:870133)

It's like why no Australian drivers drive in formula one - why bother, when the 2nd tier Nascar Series gets shown around the world and the 1st tier is the biggest series in the country its hard to wonder why you would try for the IRL!

An Australian dirt-tracker even tried out for Winston glory at Bristol last year - NASCAR has some serious pull!

Maybe, if IRL was the PPG Indycar Championship '93 then they would...

MLM · 11 Feb 2004, 01:15 (Ref:870140)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hazza
It's like why no Australian drivers drive in formula one - why bother, when the 2nd tier Nascar Series gets shown around the world and the 1st tier is the biggest series in the country its hard to wonder why you would try for the IRL!

An Australian dirt-tracker even tried out for Winston glory at Bristol last year - NASCAR has some serious pull!

Maybe, if IRL was the PPG Indycar Championship '93 then they would...

Wait a minute...I'm confused with your 1st statement,Hazza.
No Australian drivers in F1?
:confused:
What about Mark Webber? :confused:
I'm not disputing the NASCAR part and it's popularity, though.

GP Racer · 11 Feb 2004, 23:12 (Ref:871306)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hazza
It's like why no Australian drivers drive in formula one - why bother, when the 2nd tier Nascar Series gets shown around the world and the 1st tier is the biggest series in the country its hard to wonder why you would try for the IRL!

I'd like to think that not all drivers would go for just the money that NASCAR gives. I would like to believe there are drivers out there that like racing open wheelers enough to say, I'm going to the IRL or Champ Cars, because those are the cars I love to drive.

It can't be all about money and fame. Theres got to be more to it than that. I think Hornish is an IRL guy, because he likes it, and will remain there. He can be remembered as one of that series best, instead of just another NASCAR guy. Other guys have made names for themselves there also, like Dixon, DeFerran, and Schecter, and none of them are starving either.

I'm old fashioned I guess, I still think there are guys out there who do what they do, not for the money, but because that's what they want to be doing.

rustyfan · 11 Feb 2004, 23:23 (Ref:871322)

The Nextel Cup does have something the current US open-wheel scene lacks though - stability.

Not to mention 100k (or more) fans in the stands at nearly every single race and countless others on TV watching.

Got to think the money is somewhat of a factor as well.

GP Racer · 12 Feb 2004, 14:29 (Ref:872022)

Quote:

Originally posted by rustyfan
The Nextel Cup does have something the current US open-wheel scene lacks though - stability.

Not to mention 100k (or more) fans in the stands at nearly every single race and countless others on TV watching.

Got to think the money is somewhat of a factor as well.

Ah stability, what a nice word, I wish we had some of it!

That probably is THE main problem in the open wheel world right now. Why take a chance going to a series like the IRL, when fame and fortune is calling you over at NASCAR.

Hell, they've practically got a whole TV channel dedicated to them, Speed!

3state · 21 Feb 2004, 04:16 (Ref:881091)

Off topic I know but...No australians in F1? As mentioned, Mark Webber in Jaguar, but a number of text drivers, Ryan Briscoe for Toyota, Will Power and Will Davidson occasional testers for Minardi. James Courtney was texting for Jag last year but is now full-time F3 (I believe, or Formula Nippon)...