TG on Wind Tunnel

TG on Wind Tunnel

"I don't know"


TG is quite the engaging personality...

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

Dave-E wrote:
> "I don't know"
>
>
> TG is quite the engaging personality...
>

Was he drunk? Sedated? What's with him?

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

Cessna 310 wrote:

> Dave-E wrote:
>> "I don't know"
>>
>>
>> TG is quite the engaging personality...
>>
>
> Was he drunk? Sedated? What's with him?

How could we tell the difference? What would it matter?

--
Frank....H

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel


"Dave-E" <davegto67@aol,com > wrote in message
news:1174269077.917867.54920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> "I don't know"
>
>
> TG is quite the engaging personality...
>



Thank goodness for TG. Open wheel racing back in the middle 90's was
like a beautiful woman with large breasts who had breast cancer. TG knew
the only option was to cut the cancer out. That's what he did back then.
The ChampCar side tho would have said "It all looks good on the outside, it
must all be fine!" By the time it would have been apparent it would have
been too late.

TG appearance on Wind Tunnel was a delight. The guy took time to think
about the questions that were posed to him. He didn't say things just to
say them like Mr. Cash Cow. TG showed he's not susceptible to rash
judgments.

Don't think TG is a dummy just because he's not flashy. He's like General
Omar Bradley. He's getting things done.

He's made an F1 track that usually produces interesting races. He's
bringing what is possibly the most exciting form of racing on the planet
(next to the IRL) to Indy - MotoGP. And his insight, calm cool demeanor
under pressure, is what has made F1, NASCAR, the IRL, and soon to be MotoGP,
a success at Indy.

I Tivo'ed Wind Tunnel like I always do. I'm keeping this one for a few
weeks because of the TG interview. TG is a breath of fresh air.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

Von Fourche wrote:
> "Dave-E" <davegto67@aol,com > wrote in message
> news:1174269077.917867.54920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
>> "I don't know"
>>
>>
>> TG is quite the engaging personality...
>>
>
>
>
> Thank goodness for TG. Open wheel racing back in the middle 90's was
> like a beautiful woman with large breasts who had breast cancer. TG knew
> the only option was to cut the cancer out. That's what he did back then.
> The ChampCar side tho would have said "It all looks good on the outside, it
> must all be fine!" By the time it would have been apparent it would have
> been too late.

Operation was successful. The patient died.


>
> TG appearance on Wind Tunnel was a delight. The guy took time to think
> about the questions that were posed to him. He didn't say things just to
> say them like Mr. Cash Cow. TG showed he's not susceptible to rash
> judgments.

"Uh... I don't know." Yeah, thats thinking about questions that were
posed to him.


>
> Don't think TG is a dummy just because he's not flashy. He's like General
> Omar Bradley. He's getting things done.


I agree he's like a military leader. He's like General George Custer.


>
> He's made an F1 track that usually produces interesting races. He's
> bringing what is possibly the most exciting form of racing on the planet
> (next to the IRL) to Indy - MotoGP. And his insight, calm cool demeanor
> under pressure, is what has made F1, NASCAR, the IRL, and soon to be MotoGP,
> a success at Indy.

He has to do something. He ruined the Indy 500 so he's got to find
something else to keep his racing club propped up and his family jewels
profitable.


>
> I Tivo'ed Wind Tunnel like I always do. I'm keeping this one for a few
> weeks because of the TG interview. TG is a breath of fresh air.


Yep, his breath is contributing to global warming.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

> Yep, his breath is contributing to global warming.
>

Always thought of him as something of an oxygen thief ! ;-)

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Mar 19, 8:20 pm, "Iain Miller" <d...@spam.me> wrote:
> > Yep, his breath is contributing to global warming.
>
> Always thought of him as something of an oxygen thief ! ;-)



TG shoulda been a blow job.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Mar 19, 5:31 pm, "Von Fourche" <Khonak...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> "Dave-E" <davegt...@aol,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1174269077.917867.54920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > "I don't know"
>
> > TG is quite the engaging personality...
>
> Thank goodness for TG. Open wheel racing back in the middle 90's was
> like a beautiful woman with large breasts who had breast cancer. TG knew
> the only option was to cut the cancer out. That's what he did back then.
> The ChampCar side tho would have said "It all looks good on the outside, it
> must all be fine!" By the time it would have been apparent it would have
> been too late.
>
> TG appearance on Wind Tunnel was a delight. The guy took time to think
> about the questions that were posed to him. He didn't say things just to
> say them like Mr. Cash Cow. TG showed he's not susceptible to rash
> judgments.
>
> Don't think TG is a dummy just because he's not flashy. He's like General
> Omar Bradley. He's getting things done.
>
> He's made an F1 track that usually produces interesting races. He's
> bringing what is possibly the most exciting form of racing on the planet
> (next to the IRL) to Indy - MotoGP. And his insight, calm cool demeanor
> under pressure, is what has made F1, NASCAR, the IRL, and soon to be MotoGP,
> a success at Indy.
>
> I Tivo'ed Wind Tunnel like I always do. I'm keeping this one for a few
> weeks because of the TG interview. TG is a breath of fresh air.

You're a troll. Or completely stupid. Or both.

I would love to tear apart your post literally word for word, but I
feel like I would be wasting my time. It would be all to easy. Which
is why I think You're a troll. Or completely stupid. Or both.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Mar 19, 5:31 pm, "Von Fourche" <Khonak...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> "Dave-E" <davegt...@aol,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1174269077.917867.54920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > "I don't know"
>
> > TG is quite the engaging personality...
>
> Thank goodness for TG. Open wheel racing back in the middle 90's was
> like a beautiful woman with large breasts who had breast cancer. TG knew
> the only option was to cut the cancer out. That's what he did back then.
> The ChampCar side tho would have said "It all looks good on the outside, it
> must all be fine!" By the time it would have been apparent it would have
> been too late.
>
> TG appearance on Wind Tunnel was a delight. The guy took time to think
> about the questions that were posed to him. He didn't say things just to
> say them like Mr. Cash Cow. TG showed he's not susceptible to rash
> judgments.
>
> Don't think TG is a dummy just because he's not flashy. He's like General
> Omar Bradley. He's getting things done.
>
> He's made an F1 track that usually produces interesting races. He's
> bringing what is possibly the most exciting form of racing on the planet
> (next to the IRL) to Indy - MotoGP. And his insight, calm cool demeanor
> under pressure, is what has made F1, NASCAR, the IRL, and soon to be MotoGP,
> a success at Indy.
>
> I Tivo'ed Wind Tunnel like I always do. I'm keeping this one for a few
> weeks because of the TG interview. TG is a breath of fresh air.



Well lets see I know guys, and I see others have thought about doing
the same thing, but some things simply must not go unchallenged lest
they be mistaken for the truth.

Open wheel racings problems of the early 90s were nothing like a
cancer. More like a headache (some may think the pain was a little
lower than the head) but using your own analogy you don't do surgery
with a chainsaw. Doctors use precision, skill and all the latest
science at their disposal to do their best to see the patient
survive. Remember first do no harm??? What Tony did was the same as
removing a zit with a Poulan. Its biggest problem is that he didn't
control it.

Now I have yet to see a single thing that he proclaims that he formed
the IRL to fix that couldn't have addressed in other ways. Want more
ovals, he could have easily built a couple and I am sure Cart would
have been happy to race there if the crowds justified it. More
American drivers? How bout helping them be prepared to find
sponsors. Heros of the short tracks can't compete in a road racing
environment? Help them get the experience that they need to be in the
big time instead of spending time in a series that is taking most no
where.

Now the "protect the traditions of the month of May" well as soon as
the IRL had to pay the bill, many of the things Cart had wanted to do
that started much of the back and forth were things Tony did himself
when he own the series. Why? Many of them made sense. Tony isn't
the only reason for the split, but it my personal opinion he would be
responsible for at least 80% of it. Further he was the one that broke
away when anyone with any foresight could easily predict what would
happen. You don't have to be a soothsayer to figure that out.
Trouble is he got control of a company without really ever having to
market anything.

I am sure Tony personally is a nice man and would assume nothing else
until I met him. You have your opinion about his appearance. Mine is
different. I saw a man struggling to think on his feet. A man that
was totally out of his element. Flashy has nothing to do with
intelligence. On that we agree. The questions that were asked should
have been very easy to predict. These answers should have been
prepared well ahead of time. Most were basic enough that he should
not need to think about them. He was either unprepared, surprised by
the questions, or trying to come up with something that at least
sounded good. He had the perfect opportunity to say something to the
Champ Car fans he needs to attempt to get them in the fold, and the
best he could come up with is I don't know. Honest and I respect
that, but hardly anything thats going to win him any brownie points
from me. He also was given the chance to again state the need for the
IRL and talked about the oval racing history. Tony if that's so
important, how come the last several events you have added been road
races. That one Dave should have questioned. I would have been
interested to see his response.

I am not going to assume as to who you might be referring to as Mr
Cash Cow. Such name calling only degrades the name caller. I will
not address such in any way. I will agree with you on one thing.
Tony does not appear to make rash judgements. Instead I read someone
that might struggle to make decisions. A delibrative personality is
desirable in many lines of work, but in some its fatal at times. That
doesn't make him a bad person, but such a personality if I am correct
could be very ill suited to lead a large business operation.
Leadership demands many things and can come in many forms. The fact
that he seems to struggle with public speaking is the least of his
concerns. He very well maybe a fine man in a situation for which his
personality that comes naturally is putting him in a very difficult
situation.

Your Omar Bradley analogy is flawed. Bradley could order men to
follow. A business leader must either convince or persuade them to
follow and those around them have the choice to say no way without
going to jail. If that was happening, the IRL would be bigger than it
was in 95 now wouldn't it.

First of all the F1 track at Indy has hardly been met with praise for
the most part amoung the road racers. Of those expressing an opinion
many Ihave heard often compare it to a character at Disney World.
Tony does have the deep pockets to make it happen, but if its making
money you can bet it is finding its way into Bernie Eccelstones
pockets. The politics of F1 are even worse than that of US open
wheel. If Ferarri had threatened to pull out of a race if a chiccane
wasn't added you can bet that chicane would have been up in an flash.
Its hardly something to be excited about being in the US. Im watching
a bit more of it now that Michael Schumacher is gone.

The Nascar races is the cash that has likely help keep the IRL going.
Does it sell out now? No but its proably going to have a higher
attendance this year than the 500 and definately will have higher TV
ratings. The IRL 500 isn't the greatest spectalein racing anymore.
Its not even the biggest race at its own track. Your motorcycle race
is also a bit premature. He said they have no deal yet, but the odds
are better than 50 50. Sounds promising but again hardly a done deal.

I will give Tony some credit for his part in the development of the
safer barrier. I am totally convinced that it wouldn't be nearly as
far along as it is now without his involvement. I also believe that
some of that support was due to an early IRL spec car that was unsafe
at any racing speed. Some suffered life altering injuries before it
was corrected. The energy attenuator helped with many of the injury
problems, but the safer barrier was another major improvement. Many
lives in the future and injuries will likely be either reduced or
eliminated all together from this advancement. Hopefully he will have
the pull to get the armco off some of the IRL tracks that is still
using it. Armco and an openwheel car don't mix well.

I have issued the challenge before, but any IRL fan can convince me if
they can name just 3 ways that open wheel racing is better off since
the formation of the IRL, that couldn't have been implemented without
it. The Nascar race, F1 race and motorcycle racing could have been
done just as easily with or without the IRL. Pack racing isn't it
either. Just three ways that racing has been improved with the
formation of the IRL that couldn't have been done in other ways
without its formation.

I also sensed that Tony was a very polite individual very concerned
about appearances. I think what really bothered him is the comment
Robin made that he hated Robin. Doesn't like him, but I think the
word hate being a very harsh word concerned him. To his credit, he
doesn't hate Robin Miller.

You might call an interview like that a breath of fresh air. I
don't. I call it more like a reenactment of the campfire scene in
Blazing Saddles in a confined room, with no windows, locked doors and
not a hint of air freshner. Not a pleasant place to be. Yet to his
credit he showed. Open wheel racing right now is not pleasant either.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Mar 19, 11:48 pm, "Mark" <mblackwell1...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Mar 19, 5:31 pm, "Von Fourche" <Khonak...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dave-E" <davegt...@aol,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:1174269077.917867.54920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > "I don't know"
>
> > > TG is quite the engaging personality...
>
> > Thank goodness for TG. Open wheel racing back in the middle 90's was
> > like a beautiful woman with large breasts who had breast cancer. TG knew
> > the only option was to cut the cancer out. That's what he did back then.
> > The ChampCar side tho would have said "It all looks good on the outside, it
> > must all be fine!" By the time it would have been apparent it would have
> > been too late.
>
> > TG appearance on Wind Tunnel was a delight. The guy took time to think
> > about the questions that were posed to him. He didn't say things just to
> > say them like Mr. Cash Cow. TG showed he's not susceptible to rash
> > judgments.
>
> > Don't think TG is a dummy just because he's not flashy. He's like General
> > Omar Bradley. He's getting things done.
>
> > He's made an F1 track that usually produces interesting races. He's
> > bringing what is possibly the most exciting form of racing on the planet
> > (next to the IRL) to Indy - MotoGP. And his insight, calm cool demeanor
> > under pressure, is what has made F1, NASCAR, the IRL, and soon to be MotoGP,
> > a success at Indy.
>
> > I Tivo'ed Wind Tunnel like I always do. I'm keeping this one for a few
> > weeks because of the TG interview. TG is a breath of fresh air.
>
> Well lets see I know guys, and I see others have thought about doing
> the same thing, but some things simply must not go unchallenged lest
> they be mistaken for the truth.
>


Mark, once again, well said.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On 19 Mar 2007 21:48:04 -0700, "Mark" <mblackwell1958@yahoo,com >
wrote:

[snip]
>Now I have yet to see a single thing that he proclaims that he formed
>the IRL to fix that couldn't have addressed in other ways. Want more
>ovals, he could have easily built a couple and I am sure Cart would
>have been happy to race there if the crowds justified it. More
[snip]

He started off by building a new oval - the one at Disney World. CART
flat out refused to run there. Crowds were good, too. Generally a
sellout.

>American drivers? How bout helping them be prepared to find
>sponsors. Heros of the short tracks can't compete in a road racing
>environment? Help them get the experience that they need to be in the
>big time instead of spending time in a series that is taking most no
>where.
[snip]

He did a lot to help sponsor American drivers in the first few years
of IRL. A number of short track drivers did get a shot at Indy car
racing back then. He talked Tony Stewart into delaying his NASCAR
career to run IRL. Kinser and Hewitt got their shots at the 500.
There was a lot of razzing here from the anti-IRL crowd about TG
coercing teams into taking on short track guys. That suggests (at the
very least!) that he was putting energy into his original idea.

He stepped up the PR machine, and hired some high-powered marketing
guys to draw sponsors to the IRL teams and events.

At some point after the first few years he stepped down from running
the IRL himself. I think that's where he blew it - he left it to
people who didn't share his original vision, and were content to let
the team owners call the shots again.

>Now the "protect the traditions of the month of May" well as soon as
>the IRL had to pay the bill, many of the things Cart had wanted to do
>that started much of the back and forth were things Tony did himself
>when he own the series. Why? Many of them made sense. Tony isn't
>the only reason for the split, but it my personal opinion he would be
>responsible for at least 80% of it. Further he was the one that broke
>away when anyone with any foresight could easily predict what would
>happen. You don't have to be a soothsayer to figure that out.
>Trouble is he got control of a company without really ever having to
>market anything.
[snip]

I'm glad you recognize that it wasn't all his fault. I'd put his
share of the blame at a lot less than 80%, but that's a detail we can
continue to disagree on.

>I am sure Tony personally is a nice man and would assume nothing else
>until I met him. You have your opinion about his appearance. Mine is
>different. I saw a man struggling to think on his feet. A man that
>was totally out of his element. Flashy has nothing to do with
[snip]

He's not eloquent or fast-talking. I think that caused CART to
underestimate him. As he, for whatever reasons, underestimated CART.

>I will give Tony some credit for his part in the development of the
>safer barrier. I am totally convinced that it wouldn't be nearly as
>far along as it is now without his involvement. I also believe that
>some of that support was due to an early IRL spec car that was unsafe
>at any racing speed. Some suffered life altering injuries before it
[snip]

They addressed the rigid early IRL cars directly. I believe the same
people who worked on the SAFER barrier were involved, but Tony and IMS
were looking at softer walls before the rigid car/transmission
problems became apparent. Remember the PEDS? That was in place on
the inside of T4 exit for a couple of years before it finally tasted a
real racing impact - 1998 (or 2000?) when Luyendyk hit it in an IROC
car.

As far as I know (and someone correct me if it's different) the SAFER
barrier was an IMS effort. NASCAR may have joined in toward the end,
but it's not their product. It really galls me to watch a NASCAR race
and hear their lap dog announcers praise NASCAR for having developed
the SAFER barrier and HANS device.

Ken Plotkin

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:19:23 -0400, Ken Plotkin
<kplotkin@nospam-cox,net > wrote:

>On 19 Mar 2007 21:48:04 -0700, "Mark" <mblackwell1958@yahoo,com >
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Now I have yet to see a single thing that he proclaims that he formed
>>the IRL to fix that couldn't have addressed in other ways. Want more
>>ovals, he could have easily built a couple and I am sure Cart would
>>have been happy to race there if the crowds justified it. More
>[snip]
>
>He started off by building a new oval - the one at Disney World. CART
>flat out refused to run there. Crowds were good, too. Generally a
>sellout.

I notice they don't run there anymore so who was correct? I'll say
CC.
>
>>American drivers? How bout helping them be prepared to find
>>sponsors. Heros of the short tracks can't compete in a road racing
>>environment? Help them get the experience that they need to be in the
>>big time instead of spending time in a series that is taking most no
>>where.
>[snip]
>
>He did a lot to help sponsor American drivers in the first few years
>of IRL. A number of short track drivers did get a shot at Indy car
>racing back then. He talked Tony Stewart into delaying his NASCAR
>career to run IRL. Kinser and Hewitt got their shots at the 500.
>There was a lot of razzing here from the anti-IRL crowd about TG
>coercing teams into taking on short track guys. That suggests (at the
>very least!) that he was putting energy into his original idea.

Where has it gotten him?
>
>He stepped up the PR machine, and hired some high-powered marketing
>guys to draw sponsors to the IRL teams and events.
>
>At some point after the first few years he stepped down from running
>the IRL himself. I think that's where he blew it - he left it to
>people who didn't share his original vision, and were content to let
>the team owners call the shots again.

So is he smart or stupid?

>
>>Now the "protect the traditions of the month of May" well as soon as
>>the IRL had to pay the bill, many of the things Cart had wanted to do
>>that started much of the back and forth were things Tony did himself
>>when he own the series. Why? Many of them made sense. Tony isn't
>>the only reason for the split, but it my personal opinion he would be
>>responsible for at least 80% of it. Further he was the one that broke
>>away when anyone with any foresight could easily predict what would
>>happen. You don't have to be a soothsayer to figure that out.
>>Trouble is he got control of a company without really ever having to
>>market anything.
>[snip]
>
>I'm glad you recognize that it wasn't all his fault. I'd put his
>share of the blame at a lot less than 80%, but that's a detail we can
>continue to disagree on.
>
>>I am sure Tony personally is a nice man and would assume nothing else
>>until I met him. You have your opinion about his appearance. Mine is
>>different. I saw a man struggling to think on his feet. A man that
>>was totally out of his element. Flashy has nothing to do with
>[snip]
>
>He's not eloquent or fast-talking. I think that caused CART to
>underestimate him. As he, for whatever reasons, underestimated CART.

So hire a spokesperson then and let him/her deal with the public.
Again, is he just stupid?

>
>>I will give Tony some credit for his part in the development of the
>>safer barrier. I am totally convinced that it wouldn't be nearly as
>>far along as it is now without his involvement. I also believe that
>>some of that support was due to an early IRL spec car that was unsafe
>>at any racing speed. Some suffered life altering injuries before it
>[snip]
>
>They addressed the rigid early IRL cars directly. I believe the same
>people who worked on the SAFER barrier were involved, but Tony and IMS
>were looking at softer walls before the rigid car/transmission
>problems became apparent. Remember the PEDS? That was in place on
>the inside of T4 exit for a couple of years before it finally tasted a
>real racing impact - 1998 (or 2000?) when Luyendyk hit it in an IROC
>car.

Sure they fixed it via the attenuators, etc. but only after how many
drivers broke their backs and/or necks?

>
>As far as I know (and someone correct me if it's different) the SAFER
>barrier was an IMS effort. NASCAR may have joined in toward the end,
>but it's not their product. It really galls me to watch a NASCAR race
>and hear their lap dog announcers praise NASCAR for having developed
>the SAFER barrier and HANS device.
>
>Ken Plotkin

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Mar 20, 1:19 am, Ken Plotkin <kplot...@nospam-cox,net > wrote:
> It really galls me to watch a NASCAR race
> and hear their lap dog <snip>

Lap dog is an apt description of you with your nonstop defense of
Anton's ceaseless buffoonery.

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On Mar 20, 3:19 am, Ken Plotkin <kplot...@nospam-cox,net > wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 21:48:04 -0700, "Mark" <mblackwell1...@yahoo,com >
> wrote:
>
> [snip]>Now I have yet to see a single thing that he proclaims that he formed
> >the IRL to fix that couldn't have addressed in other ways. Want more
> >ovals, he could have easily built a couple and I am sure Cart would
> >have been happy to race there if the crowds justified it. More
>
> [snip]
>
> He started off by building a new oval - the one at Disney World. CART
> flat out refused to run there. Crowds were good, too. Generally a
> sellout.


Well before you build a facility, wouldn't it make sense to have a
deal worked out to make it profitable. If he is going to make it pay
by running Cart races, wouldn't it make sense to work together with
CART to build something they would want to use.
>
> >American drivers? How bout helping them be prepared to find
> >sponsors. Heros of the short tracks can't compete in a road racing
> >environment? Help them get the experience that they need to be in the
> >big time instead of spending time in a series that is taking most no
> >where.
>
> [snip]
>
> He did a lot to help sponsor American drivers in the first few years
> of IRL. A number of short track drivers did get a shot at Indy car
> racing back then. He talked Tony Stewart into delaying his NASCAR
> career to run IRL. Kinser and Hewitt got their shots at the 500.
> There was a lot of razzing here from the anti-IRL crowd about TG
> coercing teams into taking on short track guys. That suggests (at the
> very least!) that he was putting energy into his original idea.
>
> He stepped up the PR machine, and hired some high-powered marketing
> guys to draw sponsors to the IRL teams and events.
>
> At some point after the first few years he stepped down from running
> the IRL himself. I think that's where he blew it - he left it to
> people who didn't share his original vision, and were content to let
> the team owners call the shots again.
>

Frankly he only did any of this until he was in control of the
series. How many people did he help prior to the formation of the
IRL? I know of none, but if he did they were few and only for the 500
if that. After the split he HAD to support the drivers in order to
find 33 cars to fill the field. Even those 4 and 5 car Dick Simon
fields and AJ field fillers, just how many of them finished out the
season?? Not many if any.


> >Now the "protect the traditions of the month of May" well as soon as
> >the IRL had to pay the bill, many of the things Cart had wanted to do
> >that started much of the back and forth were things Tony did himself
> >when he own the series. Why? Many of them made sense. Tony isn't
> >the only reason for the split, but it my personal opinion he would be
> >responsible for at least 80% of it. Further he was the one that broke
> >away when anyone with any foresight could easily predict what would
> >happen. You don't have to be a soothsayer to figure that out.
> >Trouble is he got control of a company without really ever having to
> >market anything.
>
> [snip]
>
> I'm glad you recognize that it wasn't all his fault. I'd put his
> share of the blame at a lot less than 80%, but that's a detail we can
> continue to disagree on.
>
> >I am sure Tony personally is a nice man and would assume nothing else
> >until I met him. You have your opinion about his appearance. Mine is
> >different. I saw a man struggling to think on his feet. A man that
> >was totally out of his element. Flashy has nothing to do with
>
> [snip]
>
> He's not eloquent or fast-talking. I think that caused CART to
> underestimate him. As he, for whatever reasons, underestimated CART.

Cart probably did underestimate or maybe over estimated him a bit.
What they had was making everyone a great deal of cash. Tony was
pracitically brand new in his new job, one he got by birth rather than
merit. Again getting the job by birth doesn't necessarily mean you
can't do the job. Bill France Jr. got the job by birth as well and
did ok. Brian I have my doubts. Tony and Brian are both 3rd
generation management in a family business. History has shown that is
where the problems surface. Frankly I would have likely called the
bluff myself had I been in Cart's shoes. Looking at it from both
sides. He was a single track owner, and important one but just one.
The Dan Gurney white papers had shown the way to make racing a viable
business and the success of Cart over the objections of the speedway
proved him to be correct. He was new on the job. A lot of what he
was demanding was in direct conflict with the Gurney white papers on
which the formation of CART was founded. That is racers running a
race series. From a business perspective, would you expect someone to
destroy the whole industry when what they had was making everyone a
nice profit. Such destruction was easy to see as having a very high
likelyhood of happening. Reasonable businessmen could see this and
would easily expect a reasonable businessman to see this and back
down. They were wrong. Tony either didn't have the foresight to see
the potential damage that could be done, or had such a strong ego that
the Indy 500 was indestructable. He was wrong too.
>
> >I will give Tony some credit for his part in the development of the
> >safer barrier. I am totally convinced that it wouldn't be nearly as
> >far along as it is now without his involvement. I also believe that
> >some of that support was due to an early IRL spec car that was unsafe
> >at any racing speed. Some suffered life altering injuries before it
>
> [snip]
>
> They addressed the rigid early IRL cars directly. I believe the same
> people who worked on the SAFER barrier were involved, but Tony and IMS
> were looking at softer walls before the rigid car/transmission
> problems became apparent. Remember the PEDS? That was in place on
> the inside of T4 exit for a couple of years before it finally tasted a
> real racing impact - 1998 (or 2000?) when Luyendyk hit it in an IROC
> car.

Now this is one thing we agree on Ken to a point. Yet how the cars
got there I have a problem with. The cars were rushed, design by the
nature of the time table had to be rushed and as a result series
injuries occurred. Was it intentional? Not in my opinion but instead
of halting things and finding a solution, the chassis had been locked
in at production for a 3 year run including the design flaw. To their
credit they found a way to improve it as quickly as possible, but
getting the car out there that fast had to mean problems The
attenuator seems to have worked and thankfully the injury problems
seemed to have been kept down or elimated. I still wonder how much
the schedule affected some of the decisions and testing.

Its also not the first time in history flaws have shown up. When you
push the limits of technology, you are going to go over the limits
once in a while. Ken I know you remember the Indy car limp where
drivers feet were being severely damaged. Extending the footbox and
some fairly minor changes to the car seemed to fix it. What I hated
was the locked in concept so when you find these problems, if you need
to make car spec changes to make the best fix not the fix that will
fit the locked in chassis, it simply can't be done. Teams have
budgeted for using these chassis for a given period of time, and then
suddenly making them buy new cars is just going to be an extreme
hardship to their companies survival.
>
> As far as I know (and someone correct me if it's different) the SAFER
> barrier was an IMS effort. NASCAR may have joined in toward the end,
> but it's not their product. It really galls me to watch a NASCAR race
> and hear their lap dog announcers praise NASCAR for having developed
> the SAFER barrier and HANS device.

I remember the system Arie hit. I give the speedway for trying
something. It helped Arie, but do you also remember the mess it made?
The Hans I am not sure anyone directly involved in racing had an
influence. I think this might have been a case of one man with a good
idea and the courage to see if it could help. I would liken it more
to Bill Simpson and the firesuit that saw a new product and thought of
a new way to use it. I don't know how much money or influence the
Speedway had in the development of the safer barrier with the Univ of
Nebreska (IIRC) but I think its fairly well documented that they were
both involved and maybe the driving force behind it. On that I will
say they were smart enough to know that many of the highest speeds and
hardest hits were right there and it was in their best interest to be
involved in that research. Its paying off now with safer racers. Sad
thing is these days a lot of Nascar fans are just there for the wrecks
and could care less about much if anything else.


>
> Ken Plotkin

Re: TG on Wind Tunnel

On 20 Mar 2007 08:47:49 -0700, "Mark" <mblackwell1958@yahoo,com >
wrote:


>Well before you build a facility, wouldn't it make sense to have a
>deal worked out to make it profitable. If he is going to make it pay
>by running Cart races, wouldn't it make sense to work together with
>CART to build something they would want to use.

I don't know how the finances work, but with the stands full and
network TV coverage you'd think it was profitable.

WDW was built at at time when it seemed that CART did not want any
ovals.

>Frankly he only did any of this until he was in control of the
>series. How many people did he help prior to the formation of the
>IRL? I know of none, but if he did they were few and only for the 500
>if that. After the split he HAD to support the drivers in order to
>find 33 cars to fill the field. Even those 4 and 5 car Dick Simon
>fields and AJ field fillers, just how many of them finished out the
>season?? Not many if any.

That's a good point. I don't know of any help he extended before he
started the IRL. IRL did help teams and drivers throughout the
season. I remember at least a few instances of IRL working to help
short track guys get sponsors and/or rides for other than the 500.

But you're right. His concept to help the short track guys was to
form the IRL, not to bring particular teams or drivers along.

>
>Cart probably did underestimate or maybe over estimated him a bit.
>What they had was making everyone a great deal of cash. Tony was
>pracitically brand new in his new job, one he got by birth rather than
>merit. Again getting the job by birth doesn't necessarily mean you
>can't do the job. Bill France Jr. got the job by birth as well and
>did ok. Brian I have my doubts. Tony and Brian are both 3rd
>generation management in a family business. History has shown that is
>where the problems surface. Frankly I would have likely called the
>bluff myself had I been in Cart's shoes. Looking at it from both
>sides. He was a single track owner, and important one but just one.
>The Dan Gurney white papers had shown the way to make racing a viable
>business and the success of Cart over the objections of the speedway
>proved him to be correct. He was new on the job. A lot of what he
>was demanding was in direct conflict with the Gurney white papers on
>which the formation of CART was founded. That is racers running a
>race series. From a business perspective, would you expect someone to
>destroy the whole industry when what they had was making everyone a
>nice profit. Such destruction was easy to see as having a very high
>likelyhood of happening. Reasonable businessmen could see this and
>would easily expect a reasonable businessman to see this and back
>down. They were wrong. Tony either didn't have the foresight to see
>the potential damage that could be done, or had such a strong ego that
>the Indy 500 was indestructable. He was wrong too.

I think both sides were hardheaded and egocentric.

I've read Gurney's White Paper. He called for control of the sport by
a single strong man, like Ecclestone in F1. Not a board of all the
owners, with a sockpuppet chairman.

TG spent some time as a non-voting member of the CART board. I wonder
if his observations of that group gave him a wrong impression of the
tenacity of some of the individual members.


>Now this is one thing we agree on Ken to a point. Yet how the cars
>got there I have a problem with. The cars were rushed, design by the
>nature of the time table had to be rushed and as a result series
>injuries occurred. Was it intentional? Not in my opinion but instead
>of halting things and finding a solution, the chassis had been locked
>in at production for a 3 year run including the design flaw. To their
>credit they found a way to improve it as quickly as possible, but
>getting the car out there that fast had to mean problems The
>attenuator seems to have worked and thankfully the injury problems
>seemed to have been kept down or elimated. I still wonder how much
>the schedule affected some of the decisions and testing.

Definitely a rush. They ran the first year with old CART equipment,
and the CART chassis makers were not going to supply IRL. (Nothing
negative on their part - they had their customers and their production
capacity.) So IRL went to established car builders, and set out to
build CART-like cars with a slant toward ovals.

I think making the chassis spec was a very unfortunate necessity.
Think of how much worse it could have been if they did not develop
things, in a very controlled way, with established car builders. And
those builders needed some kind of guarantee for their investment.
But it legitimized the concept of spec cars in a top line series. An
abhorrent concept being embraced by everyone except F1.

The engines also had some rush-to-track problems. I think they had
Joe Hazelwood build the initial oil systems. But that got sorted out
fairly quickly.

>
>Its also not the first time in history flaws have shown up. When you
>push the limits of technology, you are going to go over the limits
>once in a while. Ken I know you remember the Indy car limp where
>drivers feet were being severely damaged. Extending the footbox and
>some fairly minor changes to the car seemed to fix it. What I hated
>was the locked in concept so when you find these problems, if you need
>to make car spec changes to make the best fix not the fix that will
>fit the locked in chassis, it simply can't be done. Teams have
>budgeted for using these chassis for a given period of time, and then
>suddenly making them buy new cars is just going to be an extreme
>hardship to their companies survival.

Yes - I remember the Indy car limp. I was thinking of it when I wrote
my last reply, but did not mention it lest someone say "He's throwing
in an anti-CART rant." It took a while to fix, with economics being
part of it. No evil, no "They want to race, let them limp"
conspiracies. Both that and the IRL rigid chassis were in the
unfortunate category of shit happens.


>I remember the system Arie hit. I give the speedway for trying
>something. It helped Arie, but do you also remember the mess it made?

I was there when he hit it. Watching from T1, and the spray of PEDS
debris was clear even that far away. I don't think it helped Arie;
might have even hurt.

PEDS was kind of a home-brew device by the speedway. The really
positive thing about the aftermath was that TG and IMS said to
themselves that they were not going to screw around with amateur
stuff, and immediately went to guys who knew what they were doing.


>The Hans I am not sure anyone directly involved in racing had an
>influence. I think this might have been a case of one man with a good
>idea and the courage to see if it could help. I would liken it more
>to Bill Simpson and the firesuit that saw a new product and thought of
>a new way to use it. I don't know how much money or influence the
>Speedway had in the development of the safer barrier with the Univ of
>Nebreska (IIRC) but I think its fairly well documented that they were
>both involved and maybe the driving force behind it. On that I will
>say they were smart enough to know that many of the highest speeds and
>hardest hits were right there and it was in their best interest to be
>involved in that research. Its paying off now with safer racers. Sad
>thing is these days a lot of Nascar fans are just there for the wrecks
>and could care less about much if anything else.

Wikipedia has a brief history of the HANS device. The origins were
from road racing:

"The device was designed in the early 1980s by Dr. Robert Hubbard, a
professor of biomechanical engineering at Michigan State University.
After talking to his brother-in-law, road-racer Jim Downing, after the
death of one of their mutual friends from such a head injury, it was
decided..."

That origin is kind of interesting, recalling that the Snell
Foundation had similar genesis.

The Wiki entry has a link to Nancy Schilke's more thorough article on
the HANS device:

http :// www .motorsport,com /magazine/feature.asp?C=Special&D=2001-02-21

which points out that NASCAR didn't have much to do with it.

Wrecks have always been a big thing in racing. I never cared for them
- I could never forget that there were people inside the cars, and
that it cost the participants big money. Now that NASCAR has been
aggressive with safety, and is awash with money, I'm more comfortable
watching "The big one" unfold at the designated "big one" tracks.

My mother in law, who has no interest in racing, liked watching racing
on TV because she enjoyed seeing guys emerge, unhurt, from the wrecks.

But I'd still rather see them race, with the only physical damage
being donuts on the side of the car. And maybe a stripe on the right
rear fender of stockers.

Ken Plotkin