IndyCar needs more.
 Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:52AM
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 09:52AM By Peter M. De Lorenzo
Editor's Note: Peter will return next week with a new     installment of Fumes. - WG 
 
Detroit. Now that the tire smoke has cleared from St.       Petersburg - it was  terrific to see James Hinchliffe get his first       win - once again  the paddock buzz revolves around a new "savior"       for IndyCar  lurking in the transporters, one Zak Brown. The       peripatetic  entrepreneur and head of Indianapolis-based Just       Marketing Inc.,  who seems to make all of the world's racing       business his business, is now on the short list for a new       IndyCar CEO. A list  of one, in fact, according to the reports and       the ever  laser-accurate paddock gossip. But Zak Brown is a busy       guy, so  busy that even F1 is courting him to be what's next after       The Era  of Bernie. So...
 
 Can Zak Brown be The Answer for IndyCar? He  could be. He does have       the racing "credentials" that the  anti-Randy Bernard camp said       Randy Bernard lacked. He gets racing  and he knows everyone of any       importance in the sport globally and  he understands how marketing       plays an inexorable role in racing's  fundamental existence, which,       when it comes right down to it is  absolutely essential. And for a       lot of people intimately involved  in the sport of IndyCar racing,       a feeling of "righting the ship"  would be an immediate result if       Brown came on board.
 
 But then again there are so many issues facing IndyCar can one       person fix them all? That is highly debatable.
 
 To begin with, the lack of innovation and diversity of technology        has crippled Indy car racing. Anyone who doesn't think the notion of        "spec" racing has done permanent damage to the sport is kidding        themselves. Some car owners understandably might vehemently        disagree with that general statement, because they can remind        anyone who writes about these issues and doesn't have any cash in        the game that without reined-in technology the sport would be        prohibitively expensive. Point taken, but each year that       IndyCar  goes forward with more of the same technologies they've       recycled  over the last fifteen years, the opportunity to make the       sport  more relevant and interesting to hard-core and casual fans       alike  becomes more remote. As I wrote in a past column ("Diversity of Thought and the Concept of Free'), IndyCar and the        participating manufacturers need a total rethink of what they're        doing in this sport... and why. 
 
 Together they must reinvent  the sport around the foundation of       proving advanced automotive  technologies that will ultimately       benefit the industry and car buyers of the future. As I       said in that previous column, "Racing  in this country is         showing signs of deep decline and worse, the  overall interest in         the sport seems to be slowly but surely  fading with each passing         year. The sport of Indy car racing  cannot possibly survive this         slow march to oblivion, as it  barely registers on the media         radar screens now (except for the  Indy 500, of course)." 
 
 Make no mistake, the car owners  can't do it themselves. Multiple -       not just one or two -  manufacturers would have to embrace and       fully support the idea in  order for it to come to fruition. That       means that the raison  d'etre for IndyCar must transform from being       a forum for  restrictive sameness to a competitive arena that       rewards  innovative thought and blue-sky creativity. Yes, a very       tall  order, especially in this "if it's not F1, put a        production-appearing body on it" era of racing we find ourselves        in.
 
 As I watched and listened to a replay of the IndyCar  broadcast       from St. Petersburg, the prevailing tone from the  announcers went       something like this: "How could this not be  popular? It's so       good!" And it was a good race. But in  this nanosecond-attention-span world we exist in today, that's not good  enough,       unfortunately. Especially when you have all of the media  attention       in this country focusing on the last lap NASCAR  contretemps at       California Speedway on Sunday.
 
 Whoever is  the next person to run IndyCar - and Zak Brown seems       to have the  job if he wants it - that person has to begin with the       premise  that IndyCar has become a niche within the sliver of a       niche that  defines motorsports coverage as presented by the       stick-and-ball  media in this country. In the current media       environment that  deifies NASCAR, while ignoring everything else       except for a few  mentions of F1, IndyCar doesn't even register on       the radar screen,  except for the Indy 500.
 
 What will change that? What will be  the hook for IndyCar that       captures the imagination of the  hard-core and casual fans,       corporate America and the general media  in this country?
 
 I can safely assure you of one thing, and  that is that just doing what has been       done for the better part of  three decades isn't going to cut it. 
 
 Zak Brown or no, IndyCar must generate excitement and technical intrigue. The kind of intrigue that would come from a        headline like this: "Indy 500       winner averages 160 mph and gets 22  mpg!" 
 
 Just staging a cracking good race isn't enough.
 
 IndyCar will need more to survive than that.
 
 Much, much more.
 
 
 
 
Publisher's Note: As part of our continuing series celebrating the "Glory Days" of racing, we're proud to present another noteworthy image from the Ford Racing Archives. - PMD
 (Dave Friedman, courtesy of the       Ford Racing Archives and Wieck Media)
(Dave Friedman, courtesy of the       Ford Racing Archives and Wieck Media)
 Riverside, California, October 28, 1967. Mario Andretti sits in         the Holman & Moody-built "Honker II" during practice for the         Los Angeles Times Grand Prix, the fifth round of that year's         Can-Am series. Largely funded by Ford and utilizing some Ford         GT40 parts - and with a body that was shaped by substantial aero         development in the wind tunnel - the Honker II was powered by a         6-liter, fuel-injected Ford V8. Andretti was widely quoted as         saying it was the worst car he had ever driven, but he managed         to qualify in fifth in the star-studded field, only to DNF with         gear selector fork issues. Dan Gurney qualified on the pole in         his No. 36 All American Racers Lola T70 Mk. 3B powered by a         6.2-liter AAR-Weslake Ford, but he would DNF with a blown         engine. Bruce McLaren (No. 4 McLaren Cars Ltd. McLaren M6A         Chevrolet) qualified in second and won the race, followed by Jim         Hall (No. 66 Chaparral Cars Inc. Chaparral 2G Chevrolet) and         Mark Donohue (No. 6 Penske Racing Sunoco Lola T70 Mk. 3B).         Besides those drivers, other notables in the field included         Parnell Jones, Peter Revson, Mike Spence, George Follmer, Chris         Amon, John Cannon, Sam Posey, Lothar Motschenbacher, Jerry Grant         and John Surtees. Want to know why the Can-Am cars are legendary         to this day? Watch this video of Jim Pace driving a McLaren 6B         Chevrolet for a hot lap at Road America         (refresh page if error message comes up). Spectacular in every         sense of the word.
Publisher's Note: Like these Ford racing photos? Check out www.fordimages.com. Be forewarned, however, because you won't be able to go there and not order something. - PMD




