An impassioned plea against the Lucky Dog
IndyCar commentary — By More Front Wing Staff on March 9, 2011 8:56 pm(Writing duties on this post were shared by Paul and Steph, who both have the same strong views on this topic.)
INDYCAR CEO Randy Bernard has been given a lot of credit over the past year for his forward thinking and responsiveness to fan suggestions. For the most part, it’s been difficult to find fault with his decisions. He’s been universally lauded for leading changes that add excitement and entertainment value to the IZOD IndyCar Series without impacting on the sport’s integrity.
That is, he had been doing so — until today.
The majority of fans, even those who have been mostly happy with the way races have played out over the past several seasons, were willing to give double-file restarts a try. It may not have received unanimous approval, but most fans were at least tentatively supportive.
Shortly thereafter, news broke that in addition to starting two-abreast on restarts, lapped cars would be moved out of position and placed at the end of the line. Screams of rejoicing and cries of disapproval came from all corners before the news had even become official. Team owners, drivers, media, INDYCAR officials, and fans all weighed in, and it seemed that a majority of those who would not be watching the race from inside the cockpit agreed that moving cars out of line was a step that began to encroach on the integrity of the racing. Agreement certainly wasn’t universal, but it seemed that the voices opposed to the practice were louder than those in support of it. Many made reference to classic, epic race finishes that never could have happened had this rule existed in the past and lamented the loss of opportunities to repeat such events. (Steph points out in particular that her country wouldn’t have a representative on the Borg-Warner Trophy had this rule existed in 1995.)
And then, Curt Cavin of the Indianapolis Star reported that, in addition to moving all lapped cars to the back of the restart line, the IZOD IndyCar Series plans to impose a system similar to NASCAR’s Lucky Dog rule, which allows the highest-positioned car more than one lap behind the leader to make up one lap.
On this matter, the outcry from the IndyCar Nation has been universally negative. IndyCar fans have long chided NASCAR for gimmicks and rules that consistently attack the integrity of its racing. Those fans, who don’t hesitate to compare NASCAR’s brand of sport entertainment to the transparently artificial antics of the WWE, might find the implementation of a Lucky Dog rule enough to make them lose interest in IndyCar for good.
The counterargument to this is that there was once a group of race fans who considered bunching the field up behind the pace car on a yellow to be an artifically race-altering rule when it was introduced in the late 1970s. However, this change was implemented largely in the interest of safety. With there being no similar motivation behind the Lucky Dog rule, the same type of widespread acceptance cannot be expected here.
Paul likens INDYCAR’s approach to rule changes this off-season to the way his lovely wife attempts to control the temperature in their car: it’s up to full blast, then down to below freezing, then up and down again. Similarly, INDYCAR doesn’t seem to be finding a happy medium in its method of implementing change but is instead throwing everything but the kitchen sink at its rule book in an effort to create excitement.
Our suggestion: allow double-file restarts to play out for a year with no other alterations and evaluate the success of the change after 2011. In the majority of situations, restarts come after pit stops and shuffle lapped cars out of the way naturally, so it’s possible that the impact wouldn’t be as great as some suggest. If after a trial period it’s determined that leaving lapped cars in place does indeed create a hazard on restarts, that would be the time to investigate moving lapped cars out of the queue. In other words, don’t automatically alter the integrity of the racing when the alternative may not present a problem in the first place.
If the belief behind this is that NASCAR fans won’t be drawn to IndyCar if the rules of both aren’t consistent, we counter with this suggestion: let the die-hard NASCAR fans, many of whom themselves are vocal about growing weary of NASCAR’s gimmicks, come over to IndyCar and see how motorsport is meant to be run. A great finish that was realized through driving skill on the track and not at the benefit of a made-up rule might be just what’s needed to make them stand up and take notice.
It seems we’re not alone. This email landed in our inboxes via CC today:
“Randy,
I don’t think the Lucky Dog belongs in IndyCar. It’s made fun of by every IndyCar fan I know — and by a lot of NASCAR fans. It didn’t come about when NASCAR went to double-file restarts with the lap down cars in the back, it started when NASCAR started freezing the field at a caution instead of racing back to the yellow after a caution came out. That was a horrid rule that endangered people and I’m glad it’s gone, but the need for the Lucky Dog was barely justifiable. While I can see more of the point of it if you move the lap down cars to the back, it’s still so very gimmicky that it’s jarring to think of it in IndyCar.
Please, please don’t add this gimmick to IndyCar!
Thank you,
@Kraegar”
We couldn’t agree more.
Tags: Verizon IndyCar Series - Administration
Without any supporting data, I still feel very confident in my knowledge of this sport to say that, were the existing Indycar fanbase surveyed, 80% or more would NOT be in favor of the lucky dog/shuffle rule proposed.
By adopting double-wide restarts, there is a *potential* to add a bit of excitement, but the ‘shuffle back’ and ‘lucky dog’ rules are both unnecessary and will be a detriment (let’s just call an insult) to the loyal, intelligent, and enthusiast fanbase that remains.
Yes, Indycar is on the rise again, but let’s not destroy all ties with the racing past by reducing the integrity of the racing.
This is grate! Strike 2 for Ropin’ Randy! Strike 3, Tony takes over and gets to spend the rest of the fortune! With firestone leaving and the owners begging next years new car looks non existant!
What a grate time to be a hater of anything ims! Keep up the good work Ropin’!
The i am loving every minute of this hater of the irl!
Grate paragraph.
There have been a few things lately that I’ve questioned in regard to Indycar, and I’ve gone so far as to email Bernard about them. (Of course, he’s always writes back and replies, even when traveling.)
And I know how much the Lucky Dog gimmick must bug open-wheel fans. But here’s the deal. Bernard has to sell Indycar and sell it big. And not in 10 years. This year. So he’s compromising all over the place to get CART fans back and he’s adding some gimmicks to the racing and he’s adding some Nascar rules that makes it not only more familiar to a large group of racing fans, but maybe creates more interesting racing.
I’m not really defending Lucky Dog, I’m just saying maybe we should relax and see how it goes. So many changes have been made–and at every one of them some Indy fan has shouted, “that’s it! I’m never watching another race!”
So I say let Bernard market this series. Let him try to drag open-wheel racing out it’s .03 ratings basement and into the gimmicky light of mass popularity. Even if it’s a bit offensive to racing purists. I don’t expect many folks to agree with me on the blog, but it’s not the diehard fans that Bernard is trying to attract.
Redd, I agree with you to a point, but only on the track will we see how these theories play out and I would hope it takes close to a full season of racing to make a decision on what works and what doesn’t.
Having said that, I’m fully not in support of massive amounts of change ‘based on theories’ because I truly believe that it won’t move the TV ratings meter one iota (if that’s the gauge used to measure success).
I’m not even in favor of the double-file restarts but when your horsepower is limited, I can see how it *might* add some excitement. I can also see the practical application where most of these jockeys are going to try to make a pass (or two or three) by jumping the green flag, and leaders who are sitting ducks wanting to defend or likewise jump the green which will result in much more ‘rules enforcement’ drama than we’ve ever had.
To me, this result will also be a detriment by further showing that we don’t have our racing act together. Needle-moving drama? Maybe, but I think the potential for cons outweighs the pros by a large margin.
Generally speaking, red, I would normally agree with you. I’m all for “let’s try stuff and see how it goes” — right up to the point where the results of the race are being altered. I’m even willing to support the Vegas challenge where others don’t because in my opinion the pros far outweigh the cons. But the Lucky Dog is just taking it too far. Would you rather see someone make a spectacular comeback having earned a lap back on his/her own or because it was handed to him/her? The latter always leaves the viewer guessing whether the driver would have been capable of that finish without the rule that forced it. Such questions can exist in entertainment but shouldn’t in sport. I’d prefer that IndyCar racing remain being the latter foremost.
Hey. Not being a smartass, Steph–I just really don’t know–but how often does a driver really make a spectacular comeback from a lap down? (Especially on a twisty.) Seems like if it does happen it’s more the result of a lucky off-sequence pit stop or something. And any “lucky dog” is still going to have to work his or her way up through the entire field. I guess where we disagree is I think sport–like it or not–is entertainment. And with Indycar’s tiny audience, I think he feels he needs to swing for the fences. Did he go too far this time–beats me, I guess we’ll see if he really loses the support of long-time supporters.
Randy Bernard ain’t shy. He’s making the moves he feels will best sell this series. And he’s sure to be wrong as some point, I just don’t know if this is the point. It seems like the honeymoon might be over now that he’s entering some areas where open-wheel traditionalists have differences.
Remember when people got laps back by ducking into the pits when a yellow came out? Let’s have the pits open all the time and see what shuffling happens when it’s not so orchestrated. I am against the double-wide restarts, but am willing to see about those.
Personally all they ever had to do for restarts, in my opinion, was to keep the single file at pit-limited speed, and no passing until the green flag was thrown near the S-F line.
These days, comebacks don’t happen often, but there also isn’t any engine disparity right now. The problem is that we’re establishing rules now that are likely to carry forward to 2012 and beyond. Assuming we actually do get to have a new car with the Firestone debacle ongoing, those types of comebacks could become more common if there aren’t rules in place to prevent them.
And sport is entertainment, yes, but a sport becomes less entertaining (at least in my eyes — I’m sure others agree) when the skill and athleticism are taken out of it.
RB ain’t shy, but he also ain’t stupid. He’s not going to force a move that a majority vehemently disagrees with. Alienating the current fan base in the interest of attracting a new one is shooting himself in the foot and he knows it.
Sigh. Goddammit.
I hated the Lucky Dog rule when it was instituted in NASCAR (unnecessary rule, no reason for it to exist, replacing racing back to a yellow flag which was an activity which was allowed to go on about 10 years too long), and I hate that it’s going to cheapen IndyCar racing. What we’re far more likely to see than people coming from a lap down to win a race (which basically never happens anyway, and Steph, wouldn’t you possibly still have a Canuck on the Borg Warner anyway, because might Goodyear not have made his mistake without Jacques sitting on his tail on that late restart?) is the likes of a Milka Duno getting back on the lead lap over and over and over again after enjoying early race cautions (since she’s always the first to go a lap down). We don’t need that.
Too much this time, Randy. Too much.
“Steph, wouldn’t you possibly still have a Canuck on the Borg Warner anyway, because might Goodyear not have made his mistake without Jacques sitting on his tail on that late restart?”
Interesting point. Scott had a real way with losing at IMS, though — The Lady really never liked him very much. He probably would have lost it some other way. 😉
Hey, as much as I liked JV (and do still like JV, which I think puts me in a small non-Canadian minority), I would have loved for Scott to win that year. I picked him to win after Pole Day, and was already doing victory laps around my family’s living room when he passed the pace car. ‘Tis true that had JV not been behind him, he’d probably have stuffed it into the Turn 2 suites somehow, but I’m not sure that I’ve ever quite gotten over not getting that pick wrong (though Kenny Brack made up for me somewhat in ’99).
Numerous Penske/Ganassi cars go laps down all the time and get their laps back on good strategy during cautions. They’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist, just as you said.
Also just as the 26 car limit solves a problem (start-n-parkers) that also doesn’t yet exist.
Rick Mears was a lap down at Indy in 1988; he got his lap back and won the race without the use of a gimmick like the lucky dog
I’ve been reading quite a bit of commentary on the double-file/lucky dog rules. I applaud RB for trying to revitalize the Indycar series, but i’m not in favor of the “see what sticks to the wall” method.
My take is that they should do the double-file restarts, but *without* the car reshuffling. Only if restarts are done in this fashion should they impliment the Lucky Dog rule. I think having the mix of “back-markers” in the mix on a restart may add a small risk to the restart, but will make for much greater excitement and a higher skill challenge to the better drivers. Combined witht the Lucky Dog rule, it could make the races more competitive for the non-Penske/Ganassi drivers.
Permit me to make a realistic example: during a green flag pit a very competetive driver (e.g. Dixon, TK, Dario) has a SNAFU (wheel comes off, stalls, etc) and ends up near the back of the pack. Through 15 laps of hard driving they are one lap down, but not in the Lucky Dog spot, when a caution comes out. Even worse, they were in a good position to get the lap back with Green Flag pits. Now they are sent to the back of the pack, where they have to fight their way back again. Bear in mind this not only costs time, but also fuel and tires!
IMNSHO bring on the double file restarts with the Lucky Dog and dump the shuffle. It makes for better racing, more exciting racing and better TV drama. Of course YMMV!
This is a bad decision that smacks of desperation. You don’t beat Napcar by being Napcar. Let the racing remain pure and put good cars and drivers in the series and people will watch.
here’s a compromise:
do it, but don’t call it “the lucky dog”.
call it the Milka Duno position.
hey john of sparta, i think milka (dont know) duno is not comming back to indycar (arca?). as for the lucky dog, i think many folks dont like it because its nascar. i say, give it a try it might work out after all.even if it is best suited for nascar.