Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
So what, teams and vehicles struggled, that is what racing is based on.
Gurney lead the small block chevy brigade in the early eighties, and other engines came in to strut their stuff later.
It made for great racing. Close finishes are not, nor ever have been a requirement of good racing. They are a bonus that should be enjoyed occasionally.
When rules are changed to force them, they are BS.
The victories gained by Nissan were doubly sweet because it was an uphill battle.
Variety is the spice of life, without it, racing is boring same crap, same pile dung heap.
|
There is a good bit of truth here. One of the things that aggravated the snot out of me with NASCAR back in the late 80's was the arrival of the late caution for "debris." NASCAR made a big production of how close the finishes were. That is still going on and it still aggravates me. I enjoyed seeing the Super Birds that Petty had go out and demolish everyone because I knew that everybody was now trying to come up with something that would demolish them. Unfortunately it was a rule change that did them in.
The IMSA Camel GT is a perfect example of what Bob is talking about. You had great diversity and you had great racing. Yeah, Peter Gregg dominated, but you had Bob Holbert and Hurley Haywood and John Greenwood and that David Hobbs fellow (among many others) out there making it more than interesting.
I get tired, really, of all the "cost-containment" talk. I mean, this is racing. It is expensive. If you try to launder out the "costs" you often get "boring."
Personally, I think there is enough engineering talent out there to devise a formula that would allow a variety of engine types including blown and NA that would at least allow for some variety. I think we really do not need to have the series become one where there is the same McRacecar with the McRace engines.