FLASHBACK: The Fiasco 400 At The Brickyard: Laying To Rest The Mess That Was Indy

Over the course of time since the birth of auto racing as a spectator sport, many unforgettable events have carved their niches in its annals of history, and certain tracks have risen to the status of legendary in their own right.  Among those "living legends," one track stands alone in terms of historical significance and prestige:  Indianapolis Motor Speedway, otherwise known as "The Brickyard."

Racing fans have watched numerous memorable events take place there over the years, but one in particular is about to go down in the history books for all the wrong reasons: this year's disastrous spectacle that was billed as the Nascar Sprint Cup series Allstate 400.  And if the ensuing fiasco-fest and the public's subesequent reaction thereto are any indication of things to come, NASCAR may find itself looking at an otherwise unthinkable wave of the future: the money-back guarantee.  Falling short of unhapy fans actually demanding such an extreme, however, one must remember the age-old adage which states: "There are two sides to every story."  This writer is taking that premise one step further in an attempt to explore "three" sides: those of NASCAR, Goodyear and the fans themselves...and in doing so, hopefully lay this "dead horse" to rest once and for all.

NASCAR'S SIDE OF THE STORY

In defense of what happened vs. what could have been and what was ultimately expected, NASCAR is acknowledging that the COT, or "New Car," is still presenting a challenge in terms of a higher transfer of weight which is resulting in additional stress on the right side tires.  According to Robin Pemberton, NASCAR's Vice President Of Competition, in the 15 times that the Cup series has raced at the Indianapolis track, there have been no significant issues with the tires other than the need for a slight additional regulation of the low pressures.  He emphasized that everyone involved knew the potential for problems, and further that everyone on all sides of the issue worked together in the best manner possible under the circumstances to put on a good show for the fans.  However, for a mere "one time out of fifteen," it "just didn't happen."

GOODYEAR'S SIDE OF THE STORY

To summarize Goodyear's side of the story from their position as longtime tire supplier for NASCAR: The basis of their argument appears focused on the combined issues of the Brickyard's unique track surfacing and NASCAR's "new car."  As a result of the three-team tire-testing performed at the track in April, the supplier has remained firm in its position that the results of the said testing were sufficient and that no "open" testing would be necessary due to concerns about tire grip.  They further hold to the belief that the competition cautions, though annoyingly numerous in the actual running of the event, were a preferable alternative to risking potential blowouts at full speed.  Further still, the same tire compound used at the previous year's race was utilized this year: a compound which saw steady improvement with the progression of the race, and thus they based their assumptions on existing data.  The long and the short of it: when all was said and done, the tires simply failed to live up to expectations, and Goodyear has expressed a firm commitment to work closely wiht NASCAR and Brickyard officials and personnel to ensure that a satisfactory solution is reached and that a repeat performance of this year's disappointment will not become a reality.

AND FINALLY, THE FANS' PERSPECTIVE

Shifting gears from the business and technical sides of the story, to whom does NASCAR ultimately carry the responsibility to "deliver?"  It is us, the fans.  And judging from the numerous post-race reactions to which this writer has become privvy from various and sundry reliable sources, last weekend's much-anticipated event failed all of us in that respect.  A 400-mile race run in 10-lap segments?  One might be so bold as to characterize such a travesty on wheels as an extended practice- or test-session, because what we were subjected to last Sunday certainly did not satisfy the common-sense conception of a legitimate "race."  And carrying that assumption a step further, one may even demand that NASCAR adopt the college-course practice of "dropping the lowest grade" with respect to whether or not a legitimate "race" was in actuality what transpired.  Further still, should NASCAR and Brickyard personnel actually follow the suggestion discussed in several online forums, and offer refunds to the many disgruntled fans who were treated to anything "except" for the "race" which they spent their money to see?  Extreme measure?  Perhaps so, but then again, what transpired or failed to transpire last weekend was equally extreme in the form of disappointment and displeasure.

As for laying the "blame" for what happened on one side or the other, or both: the actual type of racing for which this particular track was originally constructed and introduced must be taken into proper consideration.  While Indy has hosted Nascar events over the past several years, and while they have always been enjoyable to this particular point, the actual type of racing (and racecar) that the track was designed to handle was not Nascar racing, but rather the open-wheel series events, consisting of totally different designs of racecar and an equally different style and size of racing tire.  The majority consensus points to the fact that NASCAR should have paid better attention to the issues that surfaced during the earlier-mentioned three-team testing, from which Dale Earnhardt Jr. indicated that his tires were blowing "every five laps" as opposed to the nine or ten that they lasted during the actual event.  In the humble opinion of "this" fan, who was NASCAR listening to at that point, and why was nothing done?  In the opinion of Indianapolis track chairman Tony George, NASCAR in this respect carries the brunt of the responsibility for finding the right combination of car and tire, and even more so considering the fact that the "new" car had not previously raced on an Indy-type surface.  Should this not have been indicative that more testing, perhaps "open" testing, was necessary prior to any actual "racing?"

Looking at the situation from another angle, one may further argue the issue in terms of questioning why Goodyear is recognized as the "sole" supplier of tires for all NASCAR events.  Acknowledging the controversy that ensued during the infamous "Goodyear vs Hoosier" tire wars that transpired several seasons ago, to this fan it still appears feasible that under certain conditions, just what is stopping a second tire company such as Firestone from supplying a compound of tire which has already been proven to sufficiently withstand the unique surfacing of a track originally constructed for open-wheel style racing?  Has NASCAR stopped to consider this alternative?  If not, last weekend's events should be a wakeup call to them in this respect, and it is this writer's further opinion that they certainly "should" consider such an option.

IN CONCLUSION

Whether one's personal conclusion is that the "fault" for last weekend's debacle lies with NASCAR, Goodyear, track preparation and surfacing, an insufficient amount of testing or simply the type of "ill fate" that can cast a shadow over "any" race without notice or anticipation, one thing is for certain: what happened, or rather what "didn't'" happen this past weekend should serve as an eye-opener to both NASCAR and Goodyear before future races are run in the conditions unique to a track such as The Brickyard.  One anonymous NASCAR source has been quoted as stating it thusly: "At the end of the day, NASCAR is the sanctioning body.  The buck stops here.  Rest assured we'll fix the situation."

And having duly cited those words, I now declare the "Indy Horse" officially dead, and in doing so, leave the responsibility of making certain that something of that sort doesn't happen again, in the capable and more qualified hands of the higher powers at both NASCAR and Goodyear.

It's time to move on.  I'm ready for Pocono.