Friday, August 08, 2008

The road course debate rages on

Every time NASCAR takes its show to a road course, like the one the guys will be racing on this weekend at Watkins Glen, N.Y., I get lectured.

People start telling me how great road-course racing is, how fans love it and how it's actually far, far superior to the kind of racing you see on oval tracks.

Every year, I have the same reaction.

What are you talking about?

Look, I don't like to see stock cars racing on road courses because I don't think they're very good at it. But if you like to see Cup cars on road courses then more power to you. We'll just disagree on that one.

But how can anyone argue that road course racing is preferred by fans in this country, much less by fans of NASCAR? Where's the first shred of evidence of that?

Did NASCAR become popular because it runs two road course races each year? No. In fact, NASCAR's explosion in popularity came almost specficially because it was an oval track series.

If you don't think there's a difference between the two disciplines, think about the split in the open-wheel racing world that just this year has come to and end. The Indy Racing League was built around the idea that American race fans prefer ovals, and even though the IRL has had some success with the occasional street-course events, it was the racing marketplace that soundly rejected ChampCar, a series that ran primarly on road and street courses.

There are two sports-car series that run on road courses now, the Grand American and American LeMans series. Even if they put the two series together and there was one road-course series with all of the best cars and best drivers in it, would you invest your own money in backing that series in a head-to-head battle with NASCAR?

Not if you had a brain you wouldn't.

If road-course racing is so great, where's the big-time television contract for that? Why aren't the networks lining up to show drivers turning right, as though that simple act alone indiciates superior skill?

Oval-track racing is one skill. Road-course racing is another skill. Sometimes specialists in one discipline will cross over to compete in the other, and that's fine. But if one skill was so vastly superior to the other, why wouldn't somebody who excels at the harder one wipe the floor with people when they crossed over to the easier one?

That simply doesn't happen.


Monkeesfan said...

People boast about how "good" road racing supposedly is because they're snobs who don't care what actual racing is.

Racing is a contest to get to the flag first; at heart it is a contest to outduel other drivers. Just outrunning them does not provide enough of a test of the racer - "You never want to win them easy," as Ernie Irvan said in 1996. At heart, racing is about fighting the other cars and drivers, not the track.

Road racing has none of this. Positional passing is rarer than on the least competitive ovals, strategy takes precedence over on-track combat, and the driver has to focus on keeping the car out of the sticks instead of fighting the other competitors.

As for the skill level required of road racers, consider that no road racing specialist since Mark Donahue in January 1973 has won a Winston Cup road race. We've had Ron Fellows run WC road races; we've had Boris "Wannabe a Winston Cup star even though I have no ability" Said who's been on the NASCAR fringes for over a decade with nothing much to show for it; we had Sarel Van De Merve running Darrell Waltrip's car at Watkins Glen in 1990 and crashing; we get road race stringers every time Winston Cup hits a road course - and they never make any impact.

Then consider Winston Cup drivers with fewer than 25 career wins who nonetheless won road races -

Ricky Rudd
Ernie Irvan
Benny Parsons
Geoff Bodine
Tim Richmond
Kyle Petty
Ray Elder

By the argument of the road race snobs, road racing should require so much skill that only champion-caliber drivers can master it.

The blunt reality is that road racing has no place in NASCAR or American racing in general. I'm disappointed the IRL has deemphasized superspeedways and has more road races, because it is always superspeedways, not road races, that are the best test of a racer's skill.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I think you're confusing popularity with best.

Look at it a couple of different ways.

Which is more popular on TV, the basic sitcom or a recording of a live stage play? The answer is simple, the sitcom. Now, sitcom actors get to repeat their lines over and over until they're just right. Stage actors get one shot.
Which requires more talent.

You're also confusing racing with entertainment. Oval racing is more entertaining, yes I agree. Debris and competition cautions sure help to tighten up the field. NASCAR also tends to handicap winners and bring them back to the pack. Some other non-oval forms of racing don't do this, the losers are urged to get better. Again, this process helps the show but not the sport.

One of the best NASCAR drivers of all time summed a lot of this up. Jeff Gordon, after driving an F1 car at Indianapolis, said it was easy to drive the car at 90% of its capability. That last 10% was the hard part.

Money is another factor. In the early 90's, CART was the big dog. More manufacturer involvement then than NASCAR today. Then the team owners got greedy, the series split and the rest is history. NASCAR has been able to make a lot of people wealthy along the way. How else can you explain Sterling Marlin making $3M a year to run around in the back of the pack?

Marketing is another point. A NASCAR race today is a lot like cartoon shows of the past. A bit of action interlaced with commercials selling the product. During this year's Brickyard 400, you heard a lot of NASCAR drivers say Dale Jarrett invented kissing the bricks, which is not true, since the tradition started in open wheel racing, but to the casual observer the tradition remains.

Weird, but the major manufacturers in NASCAR are Ford, Chevy and Dodge. The same three who are facing ever shrinking market share in the States.

I've been following many forms of racing for almost 20 years, including NASCAR, CART/IRL, F1 and WRC. What I hear most is NASCAR attacking other forms of racing, not the other way around.

If NASCAR was the best in the world, why did it flop in Japan and Mexico, and barely make a dent in the rest of the civilized world?

Finally, for what it's worth, the best drivers in the world are in the WRC.

okla21fan said...

Right turns are for UPS.

just sayin

Anonymous said...

I'd say the first shred of evidence is that fans keep telling you that they like it. I am a dirt tracker at heart and wish that the Cup guys would test themselves on a mile dirt instead of Cali, NH, Phoenix, Chicago, KC, etc. But I do enjoy an occasional road race and wouldn't be too upset to see one or two added to the schedule. I enjoy watching oversized, too heavy, ill handling stock cars trying to be fast. In fact I enjoy it much more than watching the IRL, Rolex or other speciality cars racing on the same track.

As usual, Monkeesfan uses statistics that are completely irrevelant to try and convince us that his opinion is the only one that matters.

Anonymous said...

I enjoy both oval and road racing, but I most enjoy watching road racing. I look forward to the 2 Cup road races each year to see the drivers being challenged and how they adapt - and, before he semi-retired, to hear what alternate use Sterling Marlin had for a road course.

If you look at the list of all-time Cup road course winners it is a list of the all-time greats - Jeff Gordon, Rusty W., Tony S., and The King.

I do believe the "ringers" have made a big impact on Cup road racing - in part by tutoring Cup regulars, but mostly by increasing the level of competition.

Anonymous said...

Road Racing is BORING to watch. Single file garbage. I wish they would take away some of the road races.

Monkeesfan said...

anonymous #1,
"Stage actors get one shot, which requires more talent." No, it requires timing; the talent level is not different between stage actors and film actors.

As for CART before the split, it had Honda, Ford, and a token involvement by Chevrolet - Chevy involvement shrunk when first Ford and then Honda got involved. It is a bit misleading to say CART had more manufacturer involvement than NASCAR today.

anonymous #2, the stats are the truth of the argument. Dirt is not a test of anything beyond keeping the car from spinning out. Racing is not about car control, it's about PASSING. There is no place in NASCAR or any American-based racing series like IRL for even one road race. Road racing is worthless as competition.

richard in NC, there isn't much real evidence that the road ringers have made that much impact.

Anonymous said... is obvious that you have zero knowledge of dirt track racing. (you will find more passing in Tulsa OK the second week of January then you will the entire Cup season..pick any year out of the last 40)

Please contain your comments to something you can at least pretend to know about.

I prefer the statistics that the best NASCAR drivers are also among the best in road racing and that "ringers" have much better than average finishes than the "regular" driver would have in the same equipment. Do they win, no...but Cup racing is so much about the equipment and so little about the driver on any type of course currently run.

Lloyd said...

To those making comments about the road racing specialist not winning any cup thing to remember would be the caliber car that they usually end of driving. For example this week the 96 car and the 70 car will be driven by "ringers", but yet these cars haven't had a good finish all year. These guys usually end up getting a top 15 run and I think that should count for some credit! Also, Juan Pablo winning last year could be considered a win for a road course specialist. It just happens to be that he was a full time rookie last year instead of a sub.

Anonymous said...

If I wanted to watch road course racing, I'd watch Formula One. I wish they'd drop both of them. Let's go back to "The Rock" and give Kentucky a race.

Anonymous said...

12 to 15 years ago, before so many accomplished ringers were involved, only a handful of drivers were real threats to win on the road courses - now half the field has a chance. All because the ringers have raised the level of competition and the Cup regulars have improved because they are determined to not let an outsider win in their backyard.

Anonymous said...

Wow. The level of un-intellecutalism is absolutely appalling. I love how in motorsports, its not the athletes and competitors themselves that have a complete lack of class, respect, and knowledge... its the fans.

Racers don't throw beer cans at eachother, fans do.

Racers don't argue about which type of racing is better. They focus on their job, and are good at it because they LOVE IT.

What would it matter if out of 100 people, 90 thought oval track racing was better than road course? Would the 10 watching the road racing feel slighted in some way? Nope.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But experts, professionals, and careers, and successes are NEVER BUILT on said opinions.

Grow up people!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous... you're such a dweeb. But then, someone who thinks Jeff Gordon is one of the "greatest drivers of all time" has to be a kid who's been watching Nascar for three or four years and just doesn't know any better. You're one of those who, if I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth, I could retire to my own island in the Pacific.

Monkeesfan said...

Anonymous #3, wrong, dirt track racing does not produce any serious amount of passing - if you're couning lapping of cars then you have no idea what "passing" is. Don't lecture me about containing comments or anything else, because you don't know racing.

richard in nc - the ringers had nothing to do with raising anything in road racing bcause they were never relevent to them.

Monkeesfan said...

david briggs, Rockingham is dead. What is so special about that place, anyway?

Anonymous said...

One of the best attributes of the Jayski site is occasionally, I get to find a hidden journalistic gem like this one, and the comments that go along with it.

While I would disagree with the premise the original author brought up, what truly made my night was to read the mental mush wrought by monkeesfan.

It isn't every day that I get to witness someone so stupid who is also, apparently, quite proud of it. I say "stupid" because "blowhard" just doesn't fit when the author is railing about how one brand or another of racing has "no place" in Series X or Y.

I'm also left to assume, from reading others' comments, that this poor soul torments the rest of you quite often, as other respondents seem to be familiar with the monkeesfan handle. My sympathies go out to you.

My take on the road courses is irrelevant, as they are here to stay in NASCAR and I think it's more likely you'll see an increase rather than a decrease in future years, although certainly no worse than status quo.

My contributions, therefore, are simply to inform monkeesfan of a fact he either doesn't know, or does but just doesn't want to admit: Sir/madam, you just don't have the intellectual depth or emotional maturity to participate in this discussion. You have my pity.

Anonymous said...

Easier to be anonymous...but my name is Susan and I am from Asheville, NC. I don't really like to argue so plain and simple:
I watch Nascar to enjoy watching Dale Jr. and other notables ......."GO FAST, TURN LEFT, DON'T WRECK".
Am I a redneck or unrefined? Maybe, but if I want to watch road racing I think there are other series to watch. If we eliminate the road races that would be 2 more tracks could have a chance for a Nascar race (notice I didn't say road race). The COT especially looks dumb on the road courses. Give me 'Dega or Bristol anytime of the "boats at Centurion" or whatever it is called. Ringers?...that's a joke ...maybe in the type of car that should be on the road courses but not the big bulky car that is now the representative of Nascar. Sorry but "It is what it is" and that ain't a Nascar race. yes I meant to say "ain't". just to make the redneck thing look real! Hey is the road race over yet?

Anonymous said...

Personally, I would rather watch paint dry or grass grow than watch a NASCAR road race. Looking at the weather maps and the forecast for the rest of the weekend, maybe God doesn't like road races anymore than I do.

Anonymous said...

Oh, so I need to check with you, to see what I like?
You're treating the cash cows, like the suits from NA$CAR.
The stupid cash cows, Sheep, fans, take your choice. Are so stupid, they won't notice that the new car, races like crap, the races are boreing, the stands are half empty, etc, etc, etc.
While YOU may not care for road courses, don't think you speak for all of us!
Personaly I despise Indy, for NA$CAR, (even whwn they manage to put on a so-called, race, California, Michigan, & all the Cookie Cutters.
In short the road courses are a welcome change fron tedium that Brian's NA$CAR has become.


Monkeesfan said...

exexec, as you bring nothing but personal spite and zero understanding of racing to the table, your pity is unwanted and your value is nil. Road racing has no place in American motorsports - that is a fact. It has no competitive value - that is a fact. How about accepting it, exexec?

No dawg, the road courses are no break from the tedium of the Brian France era of NASCAR - they are part of that tedium.

Anonymous said...

It is great to be in America where we can disagree openly, and watch different kinds of racing. Geez it would be really boring to be able to see nothing but oval racing on mile and 1/2, asphalt tracks 38 weeks a year.

Lloyd said...

The nationwide race sure was entertaining today. We got to see lots of passing and strategy play out. We also got to see some fireworks up front with between Busch and Burton. Props to Burton for not letting Kyle get away with that, but unfortunately he didn't have enough fuel for the win. I saw more action today on the so called boring road course than we do a fontana, michigan, and many other ovals. I think the 2 road courses are the right mix and benefit the series.

Anonymous said...

Someone keeps mentioning that road racing has no place in "American" auto racing. Have we forgotten that the very first race in America was in fact a race that contained both left and right turns? Is it being ignored that until the 90's road racing was the premier form here? Is it being ignored that some of the greatest road racers in the world have come from this great land? Is it being ignored that some of the worlds best racers ever have graced victory lanes and podiums in America?
All of that aside, how can it be argued that NASCAR, claiming itself to be the biggest and greatest form of auto racing in America, not belong on road courses. NASCAR has a long and storied past in respect to road racing, and it just seems a shame that a lot of people would jump at the chance to take that away from the series. Who would get he additional dates? Kentucky? Nashville? More of the same type of speedway track? Iowa would be a welcome change to the schedule, but it just doesn't have the infrastructure to support a cup race.
It was mentioned earlier that the COT doesn't look good on road courses, I would assert that it's the only track it seems good on. After all, cup is spec racing, and what better place to showcase that than a road course where the driver really does make a difference. My two cents anyway.

J in STL

Anonymous said...

What about that noted road racer and senior citizen Morgan Shepherd finishing the race and just barely a lap down. Kudos to Morgan. Why hasn't he gotten more recognition in the media?

Monkeesfan said...

lloyd, we saw lead changes nd three-abreast racing at Fontana - we didn't see it at Watkins Glen.

anonymous, you're engaging in revisionist history. In America oval racing from the start has been the premeire form of racing, from the old high-banked board ovals to midgets (which used to be the biggest form of racing in the country) to eventually Indycars to stock cars. Road racing was always a niche.

Also, road racing is not competitive. It can never be competitive becase of its very nature.

That's how it can be stated that road racing has no place in NASCAR or any form of American racing.

"Who would get the additional dates?" You mention Kentucky.

Anonymous said...

I look forward to the two road course races every year. They tend to be two "separate the men from the boys" races. I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASCAR drop the ovals. But two road course races mixed in the schedule isn't something to whine about. We all know the author hates them, but by his logic, why don't we drop anything not a 1.5mile cookie cutter. Oh, and bring back the Southern 500. That'd be great, eh D?

To be honest, I enjoy the road course races much more than the plate races. Any racer will tell you that luck plays a huge role in the outcome of any race. But the luck factor is disproportionate at the plate tracks. Who's lucky enough not to get caught up in the big one. Who's lucky enough to jump in the lane with the best push 500 feet from the finish line, etc.

Road course races give some of our sport's more talented drivers a chance to showcase their skills. And earn points over less diversely skilled drivers. More power to'em. Always looks like a helluva workout when you watch the in-car cameras at Sonoma or The Glen.

As a fan who's been bored with most of the racing this year (and feel it's mostly a result of the CoT), I'll actually watch Sunday's race (well, record it, then watch it to skip the 2 hours of commercials).

Let's go racin' at The Glen!

Anonymous said...

man I tell ya...Poole, if nothing else....can write a few lines and stir up more S*&%$ than fly fishin in a hornets nest. If you like road it...root for your driver....if you dont..have a drink and hit the lake. Its Nascar racin, which means put on a show, sell stuff for sponsors, employ a bazillion writers, MRN and PRN reporters, sirius radio talk show host, tv folks, etc....charge customers for everything under the sun AT the race, and walk away bitchin about how you got ripped off by Nascar. Like it or not...the France family is brillant..we pay them for the right to bitch about how they run the show.....road course or no road course....I bet Poole, Brian France, the drivers, the ringers, the sponsors, the tv announcers, or anyone else really gives a damn how everyone feels about road courses when they go to the bank on Monday.

Anonymous said...

Love the road racing - as boring as the ovals have been, I am really looking forward to the excitement of the road courses. Watched the race yesterday and was not disappointed at all - great race so looking forward to today's race. As a previous poster said, this gives some of the better road course drivers a chance to shine.

Monkeesfan said...

anonymous #26, how do road races seperate the men from the boys? And to compare them to the plate races and say road racing is better is an insult to reality - the plate races require the racers to fight each other, not try to keep out of the weeds. It isn't luck, it's racers making moves that determine plate races; in road racing it's all luck to gain spots because the nature of road racing stops prolific passing. Road racing never showcases any serious skill level.

Anonymous said...

Love the road racing-not sure I want to see more of it, though. As for monkeesfan, he is an idiot. He cannot differentiate between fact and opinion, and constantly confuses the two. Road racing has a long and rich history in this country in open-wheel, stocks and sports cars, and to call that racing uncompetitive by nature is utterly baffling. I guess he'll have to tell Phil Hill, Dan Gurney, Mario Andretti, et al that they were involved in a sporting enterprise sans any competition.

Anonymous said...

Those people have not been a stock car fan for at least 10 years.

Anonymous said...

monkeesfan - "anonymous, you're engaging in revisionist history. In America oval racing from the start has been the premeire form of racing, from the old high-banked board ovals to midgets (which used to be the biggest form of racing in the country) to eventually Indycars to stock cars. Road racing was always a niche."

Actually there is no "revisionist history" on view in his/her comment.

What you actually view is yet another example of simianfan showing just how big of a monkey's ass he is.

The first organized auto race in America took place on November 28, 1895 over an 87.48-km (54.36 mile) course, with Frank Duryea winning in 10 hours and 23 minutes.

Sports car racing on road courses flourished from 1947 thru until today (note that's pre-NASCAR) in various forms.

In summation monkeesfan... you're a blithering idjit!

Monkeesfan said...

Marc, revisionist history IS that poster's comment. Oval track racing long preceded those road races you mention and were always far more popular.

In summation Marc, you're a liar.

There is no place for road racing in American racing - that is a fact. Accept it.

Monkeesfan said...

controlboy, look in the mirror before you figure out what an idiot is. Road racing does not have any serious history in the US; it never grew to anything beyond niche status and was (and is) outclassed by oval racing.

I don't confuse opinion and fact; unlike you I know the differences. Road racing has no place in American racing - that is a fact because there is nothing in the way of serious combat for the win and the form never succeeded in the market competition of racing; it never caught on and never will.

Thus, there is no place for it in American racing. What is it about this fact that people don't want to accept? So what about Phil Hill? Mario Andretti succeeded in racing because he mastered the ovals.

Anonymous said...

monkeesfan - "Marc, revisionist history IS that poster's comment. Oval track racing long preceded those road races you mention and were always far more popular."

(As an aside... gee, someone else notes your propensity to confuse fact with opinion/fiction. I sense a pattern here.)

On point, Really, oval racing preceded road racing in the U.S.? Got a cite for that that proves oval racing occurred prior to 1895?

Do you mean prior to 1947?

Again, cite a reference. Prior to the formation of NASCAR in 1949 oval racing was nothing more than a rag-tag bunch of bootleggers out for their own enjoyment rattling around make-shift tracks in abandoned farmers fields.

You have also made the claim "Road racing has no place in American racing," and that "it never caught on and never will."

Perchance, if what you say is true, you could explain why American Le Mans Series television ratings have increased 31 percent and average 82,250 fans in attendance.

What are they doing to increase interest simianfan, do they have topless dancers roaming the grandstands we don't know about?

If what you say is true why is it the Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series at Miller Motorsports park in July had it's largest attendance in the events 6 year history.

Go ahead asshat, spin your way out of those truths.

Monkeesfan said...

Marc, the more you try to defend yourself the bigger idiot you make yourself. I don't need a site to make a point (just go back through the archives of National Speed Sport News if you're going to be a big baby about wanting sites); you are the one who needs proof because the premises you come up with are ridiculous and never have any basis in the sport's history; you just throw stuff out there because you have this obsessive hatred of points I make.

The fact - fact - is that oval track racing preceded road racing, outran it enormously in popularity, and relegated road racing to a niche. You whine about me confusing opinion with fact, I do no such thing.

Prior to 1949 oval racing was not as organized as it would be, but it was countrywide, with Ascot Park in CA among many other oval tracks drawing strong crowds, first with midget car racing, later with stock cars.

Your stats about the American Le Mans Series are bogus - they are not to be believed so don't cite them,. Your premise is a lie. The Grand Am race you cite did not have its biggest attendence in six years - again, you are lying through your teeth.

Go ahead yourself you punk, try to come up with some kind of credible argument for a change.

That is a fact, not an opinion. Road racing is a niche, with no place in American road racing - that is a fact, not an opinion.

Anonymous said...

monkeesnitwit - "Marc, the more you try to defend yourself the bigger idiot you make yourself. I don't need a site to make a point (just go back through the archives of National Speed Sport News if you're going to be a big baby about wanting sites);

Umm, excuse me but it's "cite" as in, short for "citation," and as opposed to site.

You can thank me later for the education, not that it will sink in, I'm just sayin' is all.

NSSN is the cite of your chosing?

Ok, but it seems to have an entire section devoted to nothing but road racing.

And I noticed in a knee-jerk reaction to being made the fool once again you totally forgot to respond to why those road racing series' are gaining in both attendance and TV ratings.

But then I never expected you to, that's your preferred modus operandi, ignore the point and sail off on some tangent.

Congrats, you've lived up to your reputation, such as it is.

Anonymous said...

And BTW, I almost forgot asshat... oops let me rephrase that "asshola"...

I lied about Grand-am attendance?

How so. Read it and weep!

Life must SUCK when facts keep smacking you square in the butt!

Monkeesfan said...

uh, Marc, it was site you meant in that first context. You insult the reader's intelligence enough already; try to be truthful for a change even in comparatively small areas.

Moreover, I said go through NSSN's archives - they've chronicled the sport's history and have shown that it is ovals, not road courses, that made racing in the US. Can you not read properly to start with?

I told you those road racing series ARE NOT GAINING IN RATINGS OR ATTENDNECE. Your assertion to the contrary is false, palpably so. Who's being made the fool here, the one telling the truth or the one, yourself, lying?

All I did was tell the truth; you just did a John Edwards. Again.

Monkeesfan said...

Marc, American racing is superspeedways, not road courses. What part of this fact don't you want to accept?

Anonymous said...

asshola - "I told you those road racing series ARE NOT GAINING IN RATINGS OR ATTENDNECE. Your assertion to the contrary is false, palpably so."

And I gave you the link to prove you're a buffoon of the first order in arguing ratings and attendance numbers.

As for your disagreement over "cite/site" Buwawahaha...
and you have the unmitigated audacity to claim I can't read.

Here nitwit my direct quote: "On point, Really, oval racing preceded road racing in the U.S.? Got a cite for that that proves oval racing occurred prior to 1895?"

Anonymous said...

And BTW monkeesASS - "Marc, American racing is superspeedways, not road courses. What part of this fact don't you want to accept?

Seems you cited Ascot Park as one of the early examples of oval racing in the U.S., a correct example I might add.

But here's the problem with that:

Ascot opened in 1932, NASCAR's first super speedway is generally regarded as Darlington that opened in 1950. (some argue Occoneechee Speedway in 1949 was)

That's 58 years of "superspeedway" racing and 76 years of short track oval racing using Ascot example.

The end result monkeesASS is you're wrong on both counts.

Using verifiable history as the gauge road racing is NOT a niche sport and "superspeedway" racing is NOT as American as short tack racing.

Monkeesfan said...

Marc, first of all, I cited Ascot Park as one example of the fact that ovals regularly outdrew road races from the beginning. In further attacking my point about superspeedways, you forget that from the beginning the track everyone wanted to emulate was the first superspeedway - Indianapolis. No one wanted to build another Ascot; the goal was to try and duplicate the size and depth of Indianapolis. That it took many years to get off the ground is true enough, but the fact was then and now that it was and is superspeedways that were and are racing's destiny.

Second, the link you gave is irrelevent because even if your numbers are believable all they illustrate is how much of a niche, and nothing more, road racing is. The audience for road racing simply isn't there beyond niche status; not enough to justify having even one road race in NASCAR or IRL.

The end result Marc is that you're not just wrong, you're dishonest. Still.

Kill the road races - make NASCAR and IRL what real racing is - all superspeedways.

Monkeesfan said...

Marc, you didn't verify history to make so fraudulent a statement as you do in post #42.

Anonymous said...

asholafan - "Second, the link you gave is irrelevent because even if your numbers are believable all they illustrate is how much of a niche, and nothing more, road racing is."

Not believable to you because even the most reliable and honest sources you discount if they don't fit the alternate universe that you apparently you reside in.

Some "niche," F1 attendance at Indy hovered around 150 to 200 thousand for each event held, it only dipped below 200k because of the tire fiasco and would resume at the 200k level when F1 returns to Indy.

American Le Mans series averages over 80k per event, that's not a niche, only to you and a result of you once again shown to be a fool an unable to admit defeat and slink out of the thread.

And BTW the NASCAR owned Grand Am series has also increased both TV ratings and attendance in the double digits with the Daytona event packing in over 100 thousand fans.

Again, not a "niche" no matter how much you spin or deny it.

Monkeesfan said...

Marc, your link is not believable, period. F1 attendence at Indy started at 270,000 and then fell below 100,000 tire fiasco or no tire fiasco and a lot of the attendance came from corporate bulk-buys to pad attendance (it's how SMI and some ISC tracks like Chicago and even Fontana pad their attendance), and the result is F1 is gone from the US yet again.

You actually expected any fans to pay to see F1?

ALMS does not average 80,000; it's flat false on its face; the numbers you cite are cooked by yourself.

Road racing is a niche and you are a liar.

sexy said...







Anonymous said...

(法新社倫敦四日電) 英國情色大亨芮孟a片的公司昨天說,芮孟av日前成人影片av女優世,享壽八十二歲;這位身價上億的房地產日本av開發商,部落格a片經在倫成人av推出第一場脫衣舞表演。






Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告


Unknown said...

Microsoft Office is so great!
Office 2010 –save your time and save your money.
The invention of Microsoft Office 2010 is a big change of the world.
Office 2007 is so powerful.
Microsoft Office 2007 is my love!
Office 2010 key is for you now!
Office 2010 download is available now!
Microsoft outlook 2010 is convenient!
Outlook 2010 is powerfull.