Comments on: Parnelli Jones’s radical ideas

By: Walt

Walt — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:36:07 +0000

My dad raced against Parnelli when I was a kid in Carpinteria California. On Monday nights we would go the races at the track. Had to be about 1956 I was ten years old. The guy that owned the track had a Hudson. When Parnelli became a bit more well known I knew he had it in him from the way he raced at Carpinteria.

By: E. Benton Tackitt

E. Benton Tackitt — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:30:50 +0000

Yea Parnelli!
I almost agree with everything you say. Except…while rocker armed motors should have their place in the formula, I believe the key to returning respect to open-wheel racing is variety. Create as many doors for entrants to go through as possible. As the europeans brought mid-engined cars over, followed by mavericks like Smokey Yunick, Mickey Thompson and Andy Granatelli, the crowds grew. Because, it was interesting.

By: THEREALDUDE

THEREALDUDE — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:06:26 +0000

Don’t listen to any of these other comments, listen to the DUDE. Parnelli wants to bring chances to the irl to save them from themselves, their High downforce, low horsepower, high cost form of Indycar racing has driven fans away in two forms. One the cars never had enough down force for the amount of horsepower they ran which caused the drivers to balance throttle, brake and grip in the corners of ovals, which rewarded good car control, which resulted in passing and slingshot drafting (aka Excitement). Two these skills were often exibited by sprint and midget drivers ( aka American Racers ) and the core Indycar audience loves to watch Americans win. Three allowing engines that are attainable to small American teams like the push-rod engines Parnelli is talking about means you don’t need 1+ million dollars for a Honda engine lease. And if you do those things the racing will be entertaining and I agree RAISE THE HORSEPOWER, LOWER THE DOWNFORCE AND LOWER THE COST, SAVE AMERICAN OPEN WHEEL RACING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

By: Scott Houghton

Scott Houghton — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:48:04 +0000

First off, good racing is entertaining. The tail wags the dog in America however, and the "entertainment" factor is a complicated and multi-layered media formula determined by marketing types, and now, as Jones points out the manufacturer as well. One can only hope that between contemporary visionaries like Rahal, and the gutsy push from guys like Jones, Unser and Andretti that good racing and technological relevance will bring back the glory of Indy racing.

By: H Donald Capps

H Donald Capps — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:42:13 +0000

All the whining and snobbery about entertainment and automobile racing is the sort of nonsense that I have long thought to be more than slightly ridiculous. Racing is a spectator sport and, by definition, a form of entertainment. Do crowds show up to watch science fair experiments conducted by a bunch of techno-geeks? Maybe the family members will, but not many others.

Racing, whether the purists who stick their noses in the air like it or not, is first and foremost entertainment, in the many senses that we can define entertainment. If it isn't "entertaining," why would you even bother to watch? All the techno-stuff bantered about racing is really more of an excuse than a rationale for racing. People could really care less about all the technical formulae and trick technologies if the racing is exciting and, yes, entertaining.

Not everyone is a "Me Too!" when it comes to bashing the entertainment aspect of racing and extolling the virtues of technology (which 99% of those praising it are totally clueless about in the first place).

By: Carl Forshage

Carl Forshage — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:40:17 +0000

Racing should be about more than Entertainment – although that is important – it should be about ideas, skill, management, and courage. Unfortunatley, it seems that everyone wants to take all of those things out of it except for the entertainment

By: Aleš Norský

Aleš Norský — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:58:41 +0000

Well, I am obviously no expert in anybody’s book, but this does not seem to make a lot of sense (with all due respect to all involved). I dread the word ENTERTAINMENT when it relates to being the primary purpose of racing. But if that is what IndyCar is aiming for, I do not see what difference it makes how many constructors are involved, other than their own marketing strategy. I assume that entertainment means constant passing, photo finishes, and an occassional crash that is spectacular enough but nobody gets hurt.

It seems to me that such objective would be best achieved in identical equipment. To promote diversity means to introduce competition, and to (at the same time) drasticly curb this competition by restrictive rules to ensure equality is just weird. I doubt that the drivers today see themselves as simple entertainers any more than Parnelli Jones did in his day. They want to race and win. And they should be allowed to gain advantage and get ahead when they and their team make the right choices. All within reason of course, we do not need another Formula 1, but do we really need another NASCAR?