I just got back from a vacation to Europe yesterday: Did you know they show WSBK qualifying live on Eurosport2? Really. But I’ve returned to see that Murphy the Bear’s claim that the state of the IRL was far worse than being reported seems to be coming true. Among the items:
-Vision Racing is having trouble finding sponsorship and money for next year. I repeat: VISION RACING.
-DirecTV really did end up dropping Versus. No one cares.
-Indycar owners want the 500 moved pronto and are making that clear. Chances someone will listen? Actually possible now.
-Grand-Am really will race at Indy, even if the tires are shit.
-Brazil’s track is picked, and its somewhere that has trees in the runoff area. Chances that race will really happen? Almost zero.
-Danica is leaving for Nationwide and will debut in a stock car in Daytona in ARCA.
-Bourdais shunned the IRL for SUPERLEAGUE FORMULA
In short, the IRL looks to be in absolute chaos at the moment, and probably in the death throes. I can see one more year.
Searching For Traction Off The Main Line: Racing News and Views 
October 18, 2009 at 7:46 am
Greetings Mr. “Virtual Balboa”,
I see that you have been criticizing statements I made on another website, now that you are fully aware I have ended my participation there. So I’ll pull up a chair at your table, where I can answer your sniping directly.
Let’s start with this little gem:
“I don’t see Andrew Bernstein arguing this at all. I see him endlessly and tirelessly arguing that the primary problem with the IRL is not a lack of vision, a product people do not want, etc., but rather that its not being promoted in such a fashion that people are aware of it. The entries have gone to great lengths to refute that as the problem.”
I have not “refuted” that ineffective promotion has been a problem: I have emphasized that it is one of the many problems with the IndyCar Series which affect its lack of recognition and poularity.
I do not argue moot points, and I feel a bit foolish writing to an anonymous blogger who may not even stop by to read his comments. It looks a little deserted around here.
The moot point made by “oldwrench”…who by the way, does not hold an umbrella for me:
“If you or I can’t be permitted to dream by producing a car or engine, so unique or advanced in its design that we can acheive or dream then….what is the point?”
The fact is, there is no money to produce new cars or engines for 2010, likely not for 2011, and speculation beyond that point is worthless.
If a series of improvements are not instituted immediately, the replay which will constitute the 2010 season could conceivably be the final one. All postulation about a new formula is meaningless, unless the existing one can be sustained and improved in the near term.
Verbose and idealistic “Vision Statements” about the future of IndyCar Racing are similarly moot. The immediate priority is to get cars to the grid for next season, to improve the competitive level of the events, and to promote those events to attract a growing fan base. Those preliminary steps will hopefully establish a position in the entertainment market that will be a saleable one to prospective Series, event, and team sponsors.
That is my focus. It requires an inventory of existing assets, an assessment of the existing product, recommendations for improvements, and the effective use of every tool in the toolbox to change IndyCar for the better.
Making valid assessments is a difficult program when much of the relevant information is secreted away or undermined by inaccuracy. I have made no secret of who I am, and of my intention to gain a position within the IRL to add my innovative and pragmatic perspectives.
Along with specific ideas about promotion, I have a variety of initiatives for attracting sponsorship, improving events on the existing schedule, and modifying the existing equipment to improve the competitive balance on track.
To date, information that I have presented to
IRL officials and their associates in the racing community has been met with acceptance. That simply means I might be adept at reinventing wheels which have already rolled, or I have concocted ideas which might sound good but will not stand up in the present reality. That will be for the IndyCar Series principles to determine, not anonymous cynics who have no personal stake in the outcome.
VirtualBalboa said…
“Jesus, watching Bernstein is comedy in motion. Look, we all get that you enjoy the current IRL product and that you want them to employ you in some capacity. Given that, why would anyone here expect serious criticism?”
Nice shot, again taken as I was walking away.
I have questioned the selection of Versus as the broadcast network. I have questioned the venue selections. I have questioned the lack of technical changes, when Series drivers and engineers have made public statements which illustrate their necessity. I have questioned the speculation about new equipment, and the poor perceptions created by doing any sort of negotiating in public instead of announcing achievements once they have been realized. There is a lot I see that I disagree with: otherwise, I would be anonymous to you.
I am also smart enough to know that I hold about 1% of the facts which are required to answer these questions. And I don’t give credence to opinions, no matter how popular they may be, until I have examined the factual basis behind them. I don’t have access to this information. Neither do blogging bloggers.
” But hey, if you have a plan for Chicagoland, you go right ahead and try, dogg.”
Nice to read that I have your permission to continue my efforts. I’ll be hoping to receive such encouragement from a real person, not a virtual one.
On Oct. 6, “Virtual Balboa” wrote:
“And now we will look forward, forward to promoting street races, because it is what we have!”
That was supposed to be a paraphrase of something I said. I have never written anything in favor of street races. Look up the history of Columbus, Ohio’s street races. Look up the potential risk apparent from other past street races, both personal and financial. Talk to the guy who is attempting to put together the Baltimore venue: I did, and you won’t read me endorsing the idea.
The idea of strnging one together in Brazil doesn’t sit too well with me, either. That’s why I researched the subject, came up with an alternative venue, and presented the information to Mr. Barnhart. He forwarded it to Mr. Angstadt, as it is a racetrack that was not on their radar. Are you starting to recognize a theme here?
Maybe not, but I’m not learned up on this whole “virtual intelligence” thing. The theme is that you don’t have any valid ground to criticize me, any more than you have valid ground to criticize the IRL administration.
Virtually unending criticism will solve nothing. It is borne from snippets of reported information that lack context, statistics that are cited without proper context, and the constant repetition of “experts” who read each others’ opinions and ratchet up the rhetoric. Virtually meaningless.
Based on what little I know, I see problems. There are many, and they are potentially fatal to the existance of IndyCar. If my suggestions prove to be virtually worthless, I will have done my best and learned something in the process. My job is fixing things.
Who you are, and what your perceived job is, remains a mystery. Don’t expect a further post from me until you are prepared to address me on equal ground. Otherwise you can continue shooting at my back, right here where there is no doubt about where we both are standing. Even if there’s virtually no one else around to read about it.
Andrew Bernstein
aka JagtechOhio
October 18, 2009 at 8:37 pm
That is a mighty reply, Andrew. You are entirely right: by BLAWGING I have done nothing to affect change in the IRL, just as it would do nothing to change US foreign & economic policy, Michael Bay’s ability to direct, or Canibus’ beat selection. You are enormously proud of your contributions to the IRL, as is established by your willingness to type self-aggrandizing references to personal attempts at affecting change in the IRL roughly every 3 sentences typed in this reply and throughout your enormously ICS-defensive posts elsewhere. I can see that. The truth hurts though; the IRL will fail in its current form and must undergo vast fundamental change in order to survive.
Roggespierre hopes use the power of the internet to perhaps change minds in the insular ICS family and I wish him luck. His posts and requests for ideas are far more conducive to discussion or argument than any of the longwinded pap “I know better than all of you and when they call me back I’ll prove it” pap that you’ve provided thus far. As a mental exercise, its more refreshing than regurgitation of PR materials and frankly has a better chance of success, long odds as they may be.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled empty blawg.
October 18, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Vacuous words from an anonymous cynic in an empty room. Just what I expected. Dogg
October 18, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Calmer than you, g. I’m sure you don’t need me to remind you to tell everyone on the intarwebz if the IRL decides to pick up any of your ideas you presented. Maybe since this series of visionary concepts you’ve presented isn’t intended to ghoulishly profit only after a bunch of people end up getting killed, you may be more successful. Keep in touch.
October 18, 2009 at 9:46 pm
That statement isn’t vacuous. It’s just plain ignorant. Dogg.
October 18, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Its one thing if you went around for years arguing for wheel tethers the way others had soft wall systems, HANS devices, and so on. Its another to go to a track with contracts in hand after 6 people are dead offering your services at a price. No one is going to take that seriously, and surprise surprise, you weren’t. Maybe you will be called upon this time and you can prove us all wrong with your sharp intellect, homey. Until you get any mildly important gig and make it work, you may want to check your ego at the door. Because right now g, you sound like an enabler hoping to cash in on a hopeless promotional effort that is getting dollars just blindly thrown at it.
October 19, 2009 at 12:30 am
The design of the wheel and suspension tether system did not exist until after the Fernandez accident at Michigan to my knowledge. I conceived it, acquired intellectual property rights for it, and presented a model within the two weeks between the tragedy and the next CART race at Mid-Ohio.
If someone else had been developing a similar safety device before the 1998 Michigan race, it’s a shame they did not see it through to implementation. Kirk Russell told me at the 1998 Mid-Ohio race that a concurrent development by F1 was in progress. Paul Page also wrote me to say that his son, a mechanical engineer, had raised a similar initiative.
Nice smear job, wrong target. Dogg.
October 19, 2009 at 2:30 am
The last untold part of that story is that you ultimately didn’t sell it to anyone for further development despite your intentions to do so at Mid-Ohio and communication with the fantastic racing elite. Lacking that and noting the remarkable inclusion of much meaningless drivel about people you conversed with in some fashion, it is classic “cool story, bro” material.
I don’t think there’s any new ground to cover. You’re obviously not going to give any details on your vision for what ICS should do unless they either A) pay you B) do it and not pay you, in which case you attempt to take credit for it C) they don’t do it and don’t pay you, in which case we’ll see some long winded post 2-3 years down the line about what they should have done. Even in the case of option C, I expect many more self important posts to follow.
October 19, 2009 at 3:12 am
The story was told in the first place, on Roggespierre’s website, when one of his party of salvationists didn’t even know the system existed.
The last part of the story is that your accusatory attempt to smear blood on my hands will hopefully be the last part of your story, Dogg.
_________________________________________
Andrew Bernstein
October 19, 2009 at 12:16 pm
People who are not aware that there are wheel tethering systems can still tell that a series doesn’t have fans in the stands or on TV. The whole act of you coming down from the mount to denounce the unclean before revanishing is particularly hilarious given the amount of change you’ve been able actually create. Given the lack thereof, we are instead treated to the “Andrew Bernstein Namedrop Show”.
If you think that we as fans are one of the obstacles to the IRL’s acceptance by the mainstream and longterm survival and growth, you are sadly mistaken. Or perhaps you know that? I’m still not sure.
October 19, 2009 at 3:23 am
Andrew:
1. I’ve read many of your comments on The Indy Idea.
2. If your engineering claims are valid, you may very well be someone who would benefit the IRL. You also seem to have plenty of enthusiasm for effecting positive change within the current organization.
3. You seem vehemently opposed to the idea of developing, outside of official channels, a long-term vision for IndyCar that, while seemingly idealistic, could perhaps be used to help seek out solutions for the current form of IndyCar. The IRL is as likely as any organization to have a decision-making apparatus too preoccupied with effecting short-term solutions to focus clearly on 5, 10, 20 years from now.
4. Your internet persona is very sour when in proximity to the above idea.
5. I ask only this: that if you wish to tear down, you play along in the “as if” spirit and show Roggespierre et. al. exactly what is wrong with a given suggestion or suggestions. If something’s demonstrably wrong, go ahead and blow it up! But I would request that you don’t tear down the idea itself. I can see your frustration with the apparent futility of the exercise, but internet voices that are both lucid and contrary tend to become much more visible than you would think. Roggespierre’s points are undeniably lucid and contrary. If the blog continues moving forward as it has, it WILL attract notice.
6. I’m not referring in any of this to your conversation here with VirtualBalboa. That’s you fellas’ business.
7. This is my real name. I don’t think that should alter the way in which my ideas are received on an internet forum.
-William Cheek
I went ahead and fixed your typo. -VB
October 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Greetings Mr. Cheek:
You have made your post on the blogging blog of an anonymous cynic who says this:
“In short, the IRL looks to be in absolute chaos at the moment, and probably in the death throes. I can see one more year.”
Sorry, that’s a vision statement I won’t contribute to either.
I can hope it is an exaggeration, suggest changes that may effect the near term future, and possibly see a Series that has sufficient strength to contemplate a progressive facelift in the years to come.
Or I can sit in my little room and throw darts at the wall.
To Dogg:
Point one is that posts I make in a variety of Forums are supported by as much factual information as I can acquire. In many cases, I use direct quotes from interviews. In instances where I am the interviewer, I write the information in the first person. There is no doubt who the source of the information is, or vague references to “I heared this”, as in every blogging blogger’s rehash of innuendo.
You can thus call me a liar if you wish: another insult added to the impressive list you have compiled won’t matter much. I believe that accusing me of having a tacit role in the death of other human beings is more than sufficient to display your ignorance and your bent towards defamation. But that’s just my opinion.
Others will be deciding on the facts.
____________________________________________
Andrew Bernstein
October 19, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Again: More of the things you do that others don’t. Actual change brought about; nil. At least the narrative is consistent.
I’ve yet to. No reason to. The level of contribution is the same whether true or false.
Here’s a great exercise for you, Andrew. Perhaps you can detail what changes it is that you’ve actually brought about. Not who you called with suggestions. Not how many people were CC’ed on your applauding of the IRL when asking for a consultancy. For all the hubris, I’ve yet to see any results that makes me think you’re much beyond a aspberger’s afflicted open wheel fan with access to money and a lack of self awareness. Why should I believe differently? “I sent letters to Rich Vogler and Steve Krisiloff in the 1980s” – not applicable. “I designed this and here is the information that you can search for it on within the US Patent and Trademark Office” – More impressive.
October 20, 2009 at 3:01 am
My narrative is consistant, because it is factual. There is not a single contribution I have made since 1982 that has had any tangible result in the racing community at large, to the best of my knowledge.
I have never claimed anything to the contrary.
Fortunately, impressing you is not my goal.
Presenting constructive suggestions is my goal, in the hope they will be actionable. So far, the only tangible result of these efforts are your accusations that I am somehow responsible for the death of six human beings.
The outcome of suggestions I personally presented to Mr. Barnhart is unknown. The pages may have been trampled on the floor of his trailer at Homestead. They may have been forwarded to other administrators before their disposal in some shiny IRL dumpster. That remains to be seen.
At no time have I claimed anything different. I have accurately stated my firsthand experiences as a part on an ongoing dialogue on Rougespierre’s website, often as responses to questions from other posters. I have done the same here in answer to your attacks.
I do not know enough about mental afflictions to hazard a guess as to how your misinterpretations are manifested. It ain’t my problem, Dogg.
Andrew Bernstein
October 20, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Exactly. In other words, your success rate and mine are currently the same. The difference; I don’t need to puff up my non-accomplishments for the value of internet chatter. You do. Case closed.
Never did that, actually. I did though say that you were effectively ambulance chasing and hoping someone would bite. That’s not a particularly constructive way to introduce items.
Its not about the claims. Its that you think they have intrinsic value. They don’t.
October 20, 2009 at 3:37 am
To Mr. Cheek:
The term “engineering claims” is yours, not mine. I am not an engineer, I am a mechanic.
As to the validity of my suggestions, that is why I sought input from engineers. The criticism I received as a result has come from anonymous cynics, not the parties ivolved in the discussions.
Whether my suggestions are actionable, or will receive any further evaluation, is unknown.
“You seem vehemently opposed to the idea of developing, outside of official channels, a long-term vision for IndyCar”
There is a starving man on my street. I can offer him a sandwich: too bad if he rejects my cooking, or maybe he’ll eat if he’s hungry enough.
Alternatively, I can hand him a drinking straw and a jar of peanut butter and say “Bon appetite”.
“If something’s demonstrably wrong, go ahead and blow it up!”
I have no motivation to blow up anything on Rougespierre’s website, that’s his ground and presumably yours.
Similarly, that is why I did not defend myself from Dogg when I was attacked on Rogespierre’s ground. I took it to the Dogg’s house.
My contributions are being made directly to IRL/ ICS. There is no reason to post any more of them publicly and hope they are read by anyone other than anonymous cynics. They will stand or fall on their own merit. They will be evaluated, or trashed.
At least that way I will have served up my offerings in a constructive fashion. The rest is just peanut butter. Bon appetite.
Andrew Bernstein
October 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Now I am truly honored. I have been ridiculed by an omniscient motor sports analyst, with greater zeal than he dispenses toward the sport’s elite personalities.
It has been my pleasure to take part in showing racing fans the world over how insightful, accurate, and fair-minded this great purveyor of the truth can articulate his views.
Similarly, I take pride in the minor role I have played in ushering “Virtual Balboa” to new levels of popularity and acclaim.
Readership on his site has doubled. Even Word Press has taken note of his linguistic wizardry. A new Tour de Force has emerged to lead the motorsports community into the future with his insightful commentary.
Imagine the new heights “Virtual Balboa” is yet to attain. As for myself, I will continue to troll the lowly alleys of the internet, looking for ways to buoy my flagging self esteem.
Alas, it is obvious almost no one will value my meaningless contributions. But I can always rest assured that there is one reader, sitting in his little room throwing darts at the wall, who will take notice. It’s been nice talking to you, Dogg.
October 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm
But I can always rest assured that there is one reader, sitting in his little room throwing darts at the wall, who will take notice.
I was waiting for the self referential ego kick, and Andrew, you never disappoint. Well, at least on that angle.
You should consider continuing to post (and perhaps offer actual criticisms!) at Monsieur R’s site then. We hope to see you offer your wide range of expertise on what the good blogmaster hopes will be able to affect actual, positive change. Until then, good night, sweet prince.
October 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm
You’ve correctly established that I have no expertise.
And that would be “reverential”, by the way.
My best to RougessPierre and the Peter Pan Clan.
Draw your straw and keep sucking, Dogg.