The IndyCar Road & Street, NASCAR Plate Track Paradoxes

Get ready for two mind-bending paradoxes that came into focus for me while watching the Circus Music Intensive IndyCar Long Beach race yesterday.

First, let’s review the Festival of Carbon Fiber at Long Beach. Cue the circus music …

Now, the paradoxes.

Road/Street Racing Paradox #1: Goofy, amateurish, ridiculous driving that causes contact/crashes on road-and-street courses is generally viewed as adding excitement to the race.

No? Check the fan blogs. (Many in my left, green sidebar) Low-yellow, low-contact St. Pete was some version of “lackluster” but high-contact, high-yellow Long Beach was (or will be) deemed more exciting and had a sweetheart of a winner. Whereas I thought St. Pete was a good example of the IndyCar twisty product (and therefore somewhat surprised by the B- to C+ grades it was given) and am conflicted about Long Beach.

Hence, the paradox. Road/street racing is held up by many as racing that requires more driver skill than oval racing (in general), the paradox is that the lack of skill (which some fans say they dislike) amps the perceived excitement. The paradox is especially pronounced among those who express disdain for NASCAR’s beating and banging full-contact racing on one hand, then get excited when a brain fade causes a Festival of Carbon Fiber at a street race on the other.

I don’t see this occurrence as hypocrisy, however. The fact that crashes on road courses seems to get people fired up leads right into …

Road/Street Racing Paradox #2: Despite being TOTALLY different forms of racing, fans find IndyCar’s road/street racing exciting for the same reason (at least in part) that fans find NASCAR packed-intensive plate track racing exciting: random things can happen.

Ponder it.

The thrill of plate racing in NASCAR (Daytona, Talladega) is that cars run around the track in a big pack creating a situation where anything can happen. The Big One (crash) can take out half the field. A mid-pack driver can chose the correct lane and find him or herself in the lead at the end as much by luck as anything else.

The excitement of the random. Same deal, different racing genre in road/street races. The possibility of contact and stack ups like we had in Long Beach is the great random variable that can shake up the field and cause someone new to win, in this case Mike Conway for Ed Carpenter Racing.

Without Ryan Hunter Reay spearing Josef Newgarden, Conway doesn’t win at Long Beach. That does not mean his victory is hollow. It means he raced the race and took advantage of things that came up in the race and won, which is part of racing. It also causes fans, most definitely including me, to be OK with the crash fest because of the outcome. The ends justify the means, to some extent.

Same deal for a plate track like Talladega. If a Big One takes out half the field and a beloved-yet-winless driver pops out of the lead draft and wins the thing, fans are excited and the Big One is written off as “just one of them racing deals.” And maybe it is.

So, in that way, two extremely dissimilar forms of racing – plate track and twisty – offer similar appeal.

Mind bending.

This all can leave fans feeling a little conflicted. At least it can leave me feeling a little conflicted. I love the fact that Conway won at Long Beach, because he’s a cool guy and drives for my boy Ed Carpenter. I’m a fan of Ed and a fan of the underdog and Ed and his team are both. Yay. I was as frothed up about Conway/Carpenter winning as anyone. On the other hand, I hate the crashing. It would have been far more gratifying for me if Conway won in a zero-yellow, flawlessly executed race. Ditto for a plate track. If Danica Patrick pops out of the pack and wins at Talladega after two big ones decimate the field, I’ll pee myself with glee. And I won’t accept the “total fluke” rebuttal, because in some way every winner on a track is a product of luck. But if I had my druthers, I’d have her win Darlington or Martinsville.

Could it be that twisty fans and plate track fans have the love of the random – and acceptance of whatever means required to create the random – in common? HUMAN SACRIFICE … DOGS AND CATS … LIVING TOGETHER … MASS HYSTERIA.

At minimum, it should be that twisty fans and plate track fans understand each other's motivations for viewing said races, and the pot will be slow to call the kettle black.

Comments

[Tim in Independence]

I dunno, I think your getting your corollary mixed up. Most people I know compare ICS street racing to short track NASCAR. Comparing small teams is fine but ECR has been a pretty good team the last 2 years on ovals across the board with Ed.

I don't see a lot of surprise winners in SC racing either. Don't forget that's Conweasle's 3rd career victory and 2 weeks ago he drove from the back of the field all the way to 3rd before the pit penalty. SC racing the cream of the drivers always rises to the top. For better or worse the series is top heavy with SC drivers. Unless all 10 got knocked out in 1 crash, surprise winners aren't the norm.

[pressdog]

The street race/short track comparison is interesting, Tim, and I hadn't stopped to ponder it. Both are each series' version of full-contact racing, and I guess as such they attract fans of each series who enjoy full-contact racing. Good point. What makes comparing street races and plate races so mind bendy for me is that despite there totally dissimilar type of racing (are any two methods of racing as opposite from each other as those two?), the attraction (random crap can happen at any time) for fans of each seems very similar.

[Tammy Kaehler]

I love twisties and hate plate racing, so I suppose I'm not your target audience. But I don't think I see the twisties as fests o' random as you do (I agree with it for plate races). I see them as the drivers needing to be more on their game.

But I do understand where you're coming from with the comparison, especially looking at yesterday's multi-car pileup--which was more NASCAR-like than a twisty usually is. Sure, in my viewing experience, sometimes a hapless passer-by gets taken out by a driver who runs out of talent. But that's usually a single car. Even yesterday's initial wreck was just RHR and Newgarden/Sato, the hapless passers-by. The blind corner (seriously? why no flag stand before that corner??) was what added all the carnage, and, as I said, that's fairly unusual. Blame street races, I suppose.

For what it's worth, I did enjoy the hell out of Saturday's IMSA race, which went flag to flag green, no carnage in sight!

[Tim in Independence]

@pressdog. I think the randomness is what people like. But with that being said IMO "surprise winners" aren't the norm. In plate racing all you have to do is survive the melees in the final 20 laps and you got a shot at winning especially if you got a team mate to shove you (on the cup level, no more on the NW level) Whereas on a SC a weak SC/RC driver would get eaten alive unless he was blocking like a mother trucker.

[pressdog]

True, Tim, but Conway was a surprise winner in that race. Not a surprising winner in that he has the talent to win, but nobody saw him winning at Long Beach given the way he qualified, who was in front of him, etc etc. , so when he did win it was a kind of surprise, if you get where I'm going. Your point about plate racing making it possible for virtually anyone to win is a good one, so the "surprise" factor is somewhat different between the two genres.

[Ron Ford]

Myself and the majority of hard-core NASCAR fans that I know can't stand plate racing. I think I am safe in saying that most of the NASCAR drivers feel the same way. Tony has expressed that opinion many times.

I would never characterize Conway as a "surprise" winner on any road or street course, regardless of where he qualifies. With the parity in IndyCar this year there may well be lots of randomness. The qualifying results for Long Beach this year is a good example of that. This is shaping up as a very interesting season IMHO.

[Chiefswon]

I loved the Machiavellian shout out. Great Read!

[Will Schilling]

I think the paradox for me is for those who say road/street racing in IndyCar is safer and not as damaging to the equipment. Uh, hello!!! The damage to all those cars, not to mention the damage to Franchitti's car in Houston. There can just as much if not more in street racing as there are on the ovals.

But I kinda liked the circus fest that happened on Sunday. IMO that's what. IndyCar needs every now and then on the streets.

[neti1]

"The paradox is especially pronounced among those who express disdain for NASCAR’s beating and banging full-contact racing on one hand, then get excited when a brain fade causes a Festival of Carbon Fiber at a street race on the other."

This represents a possibly flawed assumption: that the those who criticize NASCAR and praise the "Festival of Carbon Fiber" are the same people. It seems more likely (to me) that they are different groups of fans ...