Indy 500?

wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2007 17:32:18 -0700, XS11E >
> wrote:
>
>>Should the interest of the spectators and TV audience be given
>>precedence over the safety of the drivers? We all know it is,
>>question is should it be? They could easily have killed a couple
>>of people on that track, only pure luck and some pretty amazing
>>car design prevented multiple tragedies....
>
> Yeah like that sissy F-1 where they just keep racing rain or
> shine. Let me see the cars are more advanced, the drivers better
> and the courses more difficult and they just keep going only not
> around in circles.

Wrong, they race on tracks designed for wet. Indy is not, the asphalt
is slick when wet.

> Oh and they had a little race in Europe as well, called the Monaco
> Grand Prix. A tad more interesting than what happened on that old
> brick track in Indiana.

Not really, Monaco, Indy, Nascar are about as interesting to me as
watching golf on TV or watching the TV set turned off, which it usually
is....



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

I just love it when an expert driver joins in on a subject.

If the drivers are so "much better", why don't they do better when they
come and "try" to drive at Indy ? If they are "that good", they should
win on the first run at it and then go back and grin when ever Indy
comes up ( if ever ) at a party ?

Have YOU ever driven an open wheel race car at 200 MPH + in the dry, let
alone in the rain ? I would like to see YOU even do a perfect run on an
autocross course in the rain, at 45 to 60 MPH.
If you can, YOU must be the International Champion. I look forward to
seeing YOU driving at Indy next year.

Yes, I have tryed it. AND NO I can't do it worth a crap. ( wet or dry )


Bruce Bing '03 LS

On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:01:40 -0700, wrote:

>Yeah like that sissy F-1 where they just keep racing rain or shine.
>Let me see the cars are more advanced, the drivers better and the
>courses more difficult and they just keep going only not around in
>circles.

Well, that's true.

>Oh and they had a little race in Europe as well, called the Monaco
>Grand Prix. A tad more interesting than what happened on that old
>brick track in Indiana.

But that's not. Monaco was the usual 1-2-3-4 parade. Dullest race of
the year, as always, unlees there's also a race at the Hungaroring.

--nLarry

On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:15:34 -0700, XS11E >
wrote:

>Wrong, they race on tracks designed for wet. Indy is not, the asphalt
>is slick when wet.

Tracks "designed for the wet"? What are you smoking?

-- Larry

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:12:46 -0700, (BRUCE HASKIN)
wrote:

>If the drivers are so "much better", why don't they do better when they
>come and "try" to drive at Indy ? If they are "that good", they should
>win on the first run at it and then go back and grin when ever Indy
>comes up ( if ever ) at a party ?

Driving Indy cars on ovals, like driving NASCAR, requires a highly
developed *subset* of general driving skills. Pro Rally, prototype
racing, and F1 require the full set of skills.

Jim Clark, Graham Hill, and Emerson Fittipaldi demonstrated just the
general superiority you question.

Remember when the Indy 500 mattered enough to be part of the F1
calendar? I do.

-- Larry

pltrgyst > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:15:34 -0700, XS11E >
> wrote:
>
>>Wrong, they race on tracks designed for wet. Indy is not, the
>>asphalt is slick when wet.
>
> Tracks "designed for the wet"? What are you smoking?

Tracks designed for the wet, what's hard to understand about that?
Roads designed with drainage (Indy doesn't have much, water puddles on
the track), asphalt that's not slick like Indy, etc. etc. etc.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Hi Larry, I am 72 and I can remember back a lot longer than that ! Can
you remember what the cars at Indy were like before the went to F-1
looking cars ? The " Uprights " were a real hand full. Can you remember
what the wheels and tires looked like ? ( and the tires even had tread
on them ! :-) )

Bruce Bing '03 LS

(BRUCE HASKIN) wrote:

> I am 72

Damn, it's nice to know there are people older than I am, I won't be 72
for a VERY long time..... two weeks is a very long time, isn't it? ;-)


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On May 28, 7:10 pm, pltrgyst > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:01:40 -0700, wrote:
> >Yeah like that sissy F-1 where they just keep racing rain or shine.
> >Let me see the cars are more advanced, the drivers better and the
> >courses more difficult and they just keep going only not around in
> >circles.
>
> Well, that's true.
>
> >Oh and they had a little race in Europe as well, called the Monaco
> >Grand Prix. A tad more interesting than what happened on that old
> >brick track in Indiana.
>
> But that's not. Monaco was the usual 1-2-3-4 parade. Dullest race of
> the year, as always, unlees there's also a race at the Hungaroring.
>
> --nLarry

Monaco is about the spectacle and glamour of it, I guess. It is kind
of cool to have F1 cars zooming through city streets, scraping the
barriers - even on that relatively tight and slow course, the fast
laps are averaging around 98 mph. But as far as it being a
competition, the qualifying might be more critical than the actual
race.

They should put the old Nurburgring back on the schedule. That would
be something.

XS11E wrote:

> Not really, Monaco, Indy, Nascar are about as interesting to me as
> watching golf on TV or watching the TV set turned off, which it usually
> is....

Gotta agree with you there.

I saw the Indy 500 live one time, the year that Steve Tyler from
Aerosmith butchered the National Anthem.
That was pretty cool, (the race, not the singing), but even with good
seats it became boring to me after a while. It's not something I want to
do again.

I can't imagine watching anything but highlights of the race, (basically
wrecks), on TV, but then, I haven't watched a Superbowl in over 20 years
either, so to each their own....

Pat