Quote from gezmoor :

No actually it's the principle of the videos themselves that is disrespectful.

How so? Have you watched any of the Pearl Harbor/Arizona Memorial Tribute videos that you see every time you visit Hawaii? There's multiple footages of the Japanese planes bombing the crap out of the Arizona and the rest of Pearl Harbor. People died much more horribly there than in racing and yet multiple footages were placed there.

Maybe it's just the way the yanks portray things, and if that's the case then there really isn't a point in arguing anymore.

But fact is, no one went "aww that was sweet" after watching this video and this video wasn't made for people to go "awesome that was cool". TBH that's really all that matters. Yeah, it shows a lot of people dying. But the focus of the video was never the crashes. It was instead the drivers and the tragedy behind it.

What the hell did you think the photos of the driver's family was there for (John Nemechek, perfect example)? I mean, I can see how my previous fatality tribute could have been disrespectful because it was just a black screen with a name then a crash. But I remade this for a reason....I'm starting to think you guys never even watched my remake and just jumped to conclusions....

Quote from AstroBoy :

Wasnt she the first female IRL driver to win a race?

Sarah Fisher was the first woman to win IRL pole, Patrick was the first woman to win an IRL race

Quote from AstroBoy :

Either way things will be interesting, her first race if she performs badly she will be scrubbed by the media put down ect, she does well shes great again either way its a win win for the media. Not the series.

well...ARCA is already known as "Always Ready to Cause Accidents"

Quote from TiJay :

Very little? The first female driver in a major open wheel series is an achievement, surely?

Uhh...no she isn't?

Drivers in premier open wheel series before Danica:
F1: Lella Lombardi, Desire Wilson (who won a non points F1 race), Giovanna Amati, Maria Teresa de Filippis
ChampCar: Katherine Legge
IRL: Lyn St. James, Sarah Fisher

I think I got them all, although I might be missing a few

Quote from Intrepid :

eer.. who cares?

We on the other side of the pond do. Dont be so cynical

Quote from col :

write some letters. explain what you are trying to do.
If you can get an interview with someone, make a short film with one interview about one driver. If you are talented and clever, you could make that way more powerful and 'real' than any compilation of fatal crashes. At the end you could dedicate it to all drivers that have been killed.

Right, and I would go through that much trouble when I already have little spare time? And what happens when the letter returns to a "sure, come on over and talk"? I live in Hawaii, I do not have the means nor the money for such a project. I'm only a college student with barely a working laptop and rented school equipment.

Quote from col :

Sounds like you either have not much imagination, or not much talent ?
Film making is not just about patching clips together and editing. That's the easy bit. (but then, If you are a student of film, you know that already)

Whoa...ok, now this was uncalled for. Look col, I'm here to have a intelligent debate with you (which is why I bother responding). I will not insult anyone who thinks this vid is a piece of crap and I have not insulted you before. So keep this civil please.

Anyways, yes, i know that. I've made films before. In one of my films it literally took me 8 hours to shoot 2 minutes of film. Considering this is a topic that is really lengthy, why do you consider it reasonable for me to go through that much (and ignore my school work in the process)?

Quote from col :

If you do films in the style of existing sensationalist films that use horrific footage to entertain people, then so what, it doesn't make your stuff any more or less ethically sound.

If you define "entertaining" to be crying or touched, then fine. But I dont consider that to be entertainment. If i want people to be entertained I would want them to laugh or say "OMG THAT WAS COOL". Can you honestly say that was the intent of this video?

Quote from col :

which is more artistically satisfying to you? : make one person really think and change their views, or entertain and titilate thousands without really changing anything?

But I have changed people's opinions and views about racing. Please read...I'm tired of repeating myself. I've made people who were very cynical about racing realize it's such a dangerous and thus they have more respect for it.

Quote from col :

Its easy to make someone cry, but not to make someone think.

I disagree. Evoking a certain and specific emotion is difficult, while making someone think is easy. Any college textbook or lecture can make someone think. But can you evoke a specific emotion with specific and limited images? That is film. Emotion and perhaps, thinking from the emotion. I do not want to preach (cause that'll annoy most of the people who encounter my videos), I do not want to lecture, I only want to show in a way that'll make you feel.

In film we have a rule (and maybe this is the yank way of doing it but it's what's hammered in) dont tell us. Show us

Quote from col :

which is exactly my point -- people go to youtube for cheap thrills and shallow entertainment.

Yes, and getting them to change their mind about how they view fatal crashes is very difficult. But I have succeeded in doing that for the most part (based on the comments in my previous uploads)

Quote from col :

If you are giving them 'what they want' with fatal crash footage, that is disrespectful to the dead drivers and offensive particularly to their relatives.

I'm not giving them what they want. They want to see a fatal crash video and laugh at it. I envoked the exact opposite in the same youtube community.

Quote from col :

yes

Sure...and Eisentein's Battleship Potempkin was more about having a intellectual discussion than envoking emotion through montage :rolleyes:

Quote from col :

I doubt it as well. On the other hand, a talented film maker with a passion for motor racing and a real understanding of ideas like respect and sensitivity could produce something more moving and with much more lasting impact.

Fine, oh great one who knows all about filmmaking. Tell me how. Tell me, with my budget of $0 and time of only 1 hour per day with no shooting equipment and a computer that renders a 10 minute video in 2 hours. How would I be able to make a "better" tribute?

Should I have made it a slideshow instead? Do you seriously think text, talking and a slideshow would have an impact on anybody that have already watched the history channel?

Quote from col :

If you have the attention span of a goldfish.
Personally, I think subjects with the gravity of this one demand more respect. And you should have more respect for your audience.

Perhaps, but I'm going for a general audience, and i estimate only 30% of that audience will understand or know something about motorsports. The rest simply dont know, care or post ignorant comments. Well, this video has changed the other 70%. No one went "aww that was sweet". No one went "that was awesome". That's very important

Quote from col :

If you produce a film with words, and its good, people will watch.

Syriana was a film that was amazing. Yet it only made 50 million cumlative. No one wants to watch a film that's didactic or preachy.

Quote from col :

If you think 'History Channel ripoffs' are no good, do it better!, back yourself rather than chickening out with a bunch of excuses.

I'm a fricking broke college student. I have limited resources and I have about only 1 hour to spare for my free time. How in the world do you expect me to "do better" than the history channel? The point of me bringing up a History Channel ripoff is purely because a poorly done overtalkative video will get no views and engage no one. In fact, arguably, a good History Channel video will not engage the wide audiences anyway.

Quote from col :

sorry boss, didn't know there were special rules.

You can do what you want. But I dont respond to counters and snide remarks to past posts mainly because the situation has changed since then. I figured you were smart enough to realize that

Quote from col :

Without detailed statistics and technical information, there is no way of really learning anything about the relative levels of safety in motorsports. You're not going to learn anything from these films that you don't already know. So they are redundant in every way other than as a form of shallow distasteful entertainment.

Oh my god...so you think detailed statistics and technical information is the ONLY way for people to learn or gain something from films? Savior, Saving Private Ryan, District 9. Do you think those are "shallow" entertainments just because they depict a true event, engage the audiences in montage editing but show no detailed statistics and technical information? (Notice that I'm quoting yank films...)

Maybe you europeans work differently, but if I were to say this to an american film goer (or scholar) they would just laugh their teeth off.

Keep in mind this video was intended to engaged those who know absolutely nothing about motorsports. Literally everybody around me can't tell the difference between NASCAR and F1 (and i am NOT JOKING). Maybe it's redundant for you. But it isn't for the majority of the people who wander into my videos. For them, this video is an eye opener and I've meet a few motorsports fans who've given me PMs that this video was an eye opener for them

Last edited by lizardfolk, Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:20.

Just like JP Montoya, Scott Speed, Ricky Carmichael before her. ARCA should be interesting, it really is a good indicator of whether you will be able to survive in a stock car setting or not.

Quote from col :

The tributes at the Oscars to actors who have died do not contain video footage of their deaths. If they did, they would be considered morbid, offensive, distasteful etc.

BlueFlame's counter is actually a good one.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You're using the wrong context, an actor can't die from acting, they can die from natural causes sure, but it's not the same as a racing wreck.

Actors and filmmakers didn't die from making films and making films is not dangerous. Racing is. I wanted to bring across how dangerous racing was and still is

Quote from col :

Usually in tributes to things other than motorsports they show the crash and then show the ambulance driving away, the worst part of a racing crash, is pulling the driver out, if he's in a bad way, there could be blood, broken bones etc... and these tributes never show that and that is the most gore part of it, the Tom Pryce one is borderline ott.

Arguably I didn't exactly show that as well. The only footage I would see you having a problem is would be Tom Pryce. I personally think (since the footage is heavily pixelated) that it isn't a problem. If heavy gore can been see and the video is in HD, then I would have never put that in the video.

Quote from col :

If you want to truly honour and pay tribute to the life of someone who has died tragically, make a film about their life.
To show their deaths explicitly is completely unnecessary.

Chad Coleman, Terry Schoonover, JD McDuffie, Hitoshi Ogawa. How am I suppose to show their lives when these drivers were basically ordinary people who just wanted to face the intense conditions of motorsports? I couldn't even find pictures of Coleman and Ogawa. So what...just let them be completely forgotten? I find that more morbid than showing pixelated very low qualify fatal crashes that shows absolutely no gore.

Quote from col :

If you want to highlight the tragedy of death in sport, make a film about the families and friends and how their lives have been changed. Make a film with interviews and or footage about people who have changed their sports to make them safer. What about focusing on how public opinion of a sport can be changed by tragedy.

Col...please read what you wrote again. I know I am a film student and I have a lot at my disposal in film school...BUT HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSE TO ACHIEVE THAT? Family and friends? So I have to track down the family and fans of 54 (and many of them obscure) drivers who died in motorsports? I have to travel, literally, around the globe to interview and shoot "tasteful" footages?

Does that sound reasonable to you? Yeah, sure, maybe in the far future when I make a lot more money making films (which that in itself is a long shot) I can do this. It's a good idea. But not for a college student who's strapped for cash and can barely have enough money for the plane ticket back home.

Also, I would like you to note, that alot of the "fatal" crash documentaries actually includes the fatal crash in their video. The Pearl Harbor/Arizona Memorial shows and repeats footages of the Arizona being destroyed by the Japanese planes. Why is my video so different?

One more thing, think about this. If I were to take your suggestion (which is a good one but not reasonable for me). Would that kind of video.

1. Reach a large audience
2. Achieve the horror factor of motorsports
3. Make someone cry

I think not. It would be good as an informational piece. But I'm not really going for that. I wanted to bring home the horrors and tragedy of motorsports without people actually saying it. It dilutes the impact of it if it just becomes an informational piece because everyone has seen it and people get the nasty habit of not really listening when videos like that are presented.

Quote from col :

These would be valid subjects as they would educate and inform rather than titilate.

Who goes on youtube to be educated in the traditional way? There's a reason why I posted this on youtube and not the history channel archive that my friend runs (and hardly anyone goes on). Yes, this video was intended to educate. But not in the traditional sense in which there are voiceovers, explanations and loads of interviews. The average youtube user wouldn't even make it through the first minute.

Quote from col :

None of these things would need any explicit footage of fatal accidents. In fact there is no need whatsoever to show that stuff.

So you think having a video fulled with talking would be better? I've known people who had no regard for motorsports wander in this video thinking it's another "punk rock" fatality compilation. Watch my video, and walk away stunned. Granted, the footages aren't necessarily any new. Youtube is filled with fatal crashes and fatality "tributes". But my video brought out a specific response that is rare among videos highlighting the tragedy of motorsports.

I highly doubt that if I were to take your approach, that I would be able to deliver that same impact.

Quote from col :

To justify showing footage of death, you have to be saying something that can't be said without showing the footage.

I've stated my intentions before. I dont think you've read any of the previous arguments (stick to the recent posts please).

As ATC have said. It's hard to connect with words and pictures. I also believe it's also hard for someone to connect emotionally to talking as if it was just another History Channel ripoff.

So...while your alternative is good for the intellectual and motorsports familiar. It will definitely not connect to the general audiences let alone youtube. I want the people on youtube who watches these other "tributes" for kicks finally feel some connection to the crashes that they probably watch everyday. So far, it seems that I have achieved that impact and I feel I couldn't achieve it any other way

Quote from col :

To show someones death for entertainment is crass. So someone commissioned you to do it. You need the cash. Fine. It's still crass. So the music is 'tasteful' and it made someone cry. It's still crass.

STICK TO THE RECENT ARGUMENTS. No one paid me to remake/repost the videos and why do you feel that this video was made for entertainment? Just because it showed fatal crashes? The history channel shows fatal crashes.

I never intended for this video to be laughed at. I never intended this video to be "oh that was really cool" (unlike most tributes). I never intended this video to be taken lightly. (read above posts)

Quote from col :

Good for you - you got more fatalities than they did, you rule.
(btw, That big grin smiley is so damn respectful I almost cried.)

Please do not bring up ancient posts. Those posts hardly apply to the current argument. (And it is amazing how immature I was a year ago in my responses but that's another thread and another argument, so please stick only to my recent posts)

Last edited by lizardfolk, Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:24.

Quote from Falcon140 :

Doesn't matter. It will be Toyotacar before too long.

NASCAR's thinking about going fuel injectors...

If this happens Honda and Volkswagen has already expressed interest as entering as a constructor in NASCAR so...it's not just Toyota

I also dislike the anti-toyota sentiment...NASCAR is going to be American regardless of what happens...I mean look at V8 SuperCar. They have Ford as a major constructor and they go to Bahrain and yet they still maintain their Australian flavor. Same as Stock Car Brazil/Turismo Carterra for Latin America and DTM for Germany.

I wish some of the Americans I know would stop being so xenophobic. International interest (whether it may be drivers, circuits, or constructors) will only be a plus the way I see it

Yeh, the main difference is the nose.

I remember when Pontiac use to have models in NASCAR. Man that their Grand Prix has a massive nose compared to the Fords and Chevys. Some say the nose was the difference to get Ricky Craven his win back in 2003 Darlington lol.



But yeh, with the CoT, they are much more similar then the previous stock car models. But each manufacture still have a different car (again the main difference is in the nose and rear)

killfix's AW skin

Quote from wsinda :

Then you haven't experienced it either, so your claims to its being extraordinary have no grounds.

Actually i have. I sat in a double seated stock car going around at a local track. It was a late model so I think i was only going around 170.

I was scared even coming out of the pitlane...nevermind shredding it down that massive banked oval. it was impressive and a moment I will never forget.

Quote from wsinda :

I do have a hunch, tho: adrenaline rush. Anyone can experience it by bungee-jumping or by taking a rollercoaster ride. Your senses tell you that your life is in danger, adrenaline kicks in and puts your body&mind into overdrive. Aftwards, everything else seems shallow. It's just chemistry.

But racing actually takes skill. Bungee-jumping and rollercoaster rides require no interaction...it's just purely u sitting there and feeling the thrill. Racing is that but much much more. It's skill, it's talent, it's raw emotion (victory or crash), it's raw competition...I'm not going to go as far as some and say racing is an art. But racing is hardly just purely for the adrenaline rush. If this was the case then why do people bother to create racing simulations for non-race car drivers to play? Why do people love racing so much just by watching and playing it?

Do you feel a rush watching someone bungee-jump even if bungee-jumping is exciting in itself? Hardly... What about racing? Definitely.

Quote from wsinda :

BTW, they did not "journey to the beyond". Their bones were crushed, their bodies were smashed, their skin was burnt. They suffered pain. They died and left widows and orphans behind.

Journey to the beyond is an expression that people use to say that they died. Yes they died pretty much horribly (although not everyone exactly suffered), and they left orphans behind.

THAT'S WHY IT IS A TRAGEDY. I explained this again and again, I didn't make the videos just for the heck of watching people die in crashes. I added photos of their great moments and their wives and I even had the Nemechek family in the John Nemechek fatal crash section of the video...

It's all in the edited technique, the choice of music, the style of transition, the choice of photos, etc. I wanted to convey a sense of loss and a sense of great tragedy in this video and just showing a slideshow of photos just wont do it. I did do this with the idea of creating a FILM in mind...why is this goal so "distasteful"? Just because I showed the horror of motorsports through these fatal crashes? Do you realize how arbitrary that is? If you feel so god damm strong about this...then tell me another method I could have used to carry out this goal?

Did you even watch the video or are you just prematurely jumping to conclusions and decide to bash base on that?

Quote from wsinda :

I won't deny that it takes extraordinary skill to drive these machines, but why did you not honour Fangio, Moss, Stewart, and others who were masters at their art AND were lucky enough to survive?

I did...youtube took it down quickly because of copyright infringement but that's besides the point.

Are those tributes the only kind to be allowed to exist in the world? The filmmakers tribute at the Oscars paid tribute to all the filmmakers who died. Are you saying that is morbid and only people who are still alive needs to be remembered and memorialized?

There is a purpose to show these crashes. I have explained over and over again exactly what that purpose is and what my means were to achieve it. Pictures, information, and some of the footages were of the aftermath of the crash....

You are either jumping to conclusion or you just want to argue. But this is getting pointless. Stop beating around the bush.

Last edited by lizardfolk, Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:48.

Quote from gezmoor :

You don't have to witness someones death to understand it.

Anyway you never truely understand death until it affects your life directly in some way. Watching complete strangers die on a video gives nothing to the process of understanding death.

Except a lot of the "crashes" presented were aftermath crashes as well. Where no one had actually "died" in the moment.

So, if my tribute was entire made of aftermath scenes...that small fact would make my tributes better? See how arbitrary this is?

I do admit there is a fine line...if I took a camera and recorded soldiers getting mowed down, then that would probably be better left off camera. If I were to create a tribute to victims of a serial killer, I'd likely leave out scenes of their deaths.

But there isn't anything particularly gruesome about these crashes (except the Tom Pryce one, and that video's quality was very low thankfully). In fact, someone told me "sucks that most of these crashes doesnt look as serious as some non fatal crashes (kenny brack)"

But for a motorsports fan, the crashes themselves embody the tragedy that befalls motorsports every year. It's not the gruesomeness that conveys this...but more of a sense of loss each time it is presented. It is more of a symbolic presentation instead of a "shocker" presentation. The music, the pictures, the choice of editing. It's all meant to push towards a goal to convey the sense of tragedy and loss as well as the horror side of motorsports, without physically watching something incredibly gruesome.

Ever wonder that if I made this video for the sake of watching people suffer or for "voyeuristic" purposes, then why didn't I put pictures of the drivers being graphically operated on in the video?

Make no mistake some tributes DO put those unecessarily graphic pictures in their tributes (to make things worse these are the onces with punk rock music), and it is those tributes that usually piss me off. I set out to create something to respect these drivers while bringing it to the regular audience to create more awareness of the dangers of motorsport.

How the hell did this become about NASCAR? :rolleyes:

Actually Montoya is now quite the clean driver when it comes to NASCAR in 2009. At Watkins Glen he realized that points was important and gave everyone plenty of room.

I'd say NASCAR was good for Montoya, made him a smarter driver instead of an overzealous wrecker. But then again, if you are a overzealous wrecker in NASCAR, it'll end up in a 15 car pile up so if you continue that kind of behavior u'll just be making a whole lot of enemies in the garage. Shame this couldn't be nurtured in F1

Quote from Stigpt :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojfR3xS8FA

+1
That literally made my day

Last edited by lizardfolk, Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:47.

Quote from wsinda :

I don't understand tributes like these. I can understand it when people honour firemen or soldiers who died - they took big risks so that others might survive and live a better life. But a racer's death? It's tragic, sure. But what did they die for? Why did they take the risk? For the glory of winning? Or simply because they were addicted to the adrenaline rush? In either case, the reason is "selfish", and I can't see anything honourable in it.

Does someone have to die for a cause in order for their death to be "worthy"? What about daredevil deaths or airplane deaths?

The fact that these drivers have reached the extraordinary in which so few will understand or experience in their lifetime (and this includes almost EVERYONE here in the LFS community as well) makes their journey to the beyond that much more special.

Quote from wsinda :

It's not the same. Death is part of life, but the way people die is no reason for commemoration. I like to remember my grandparents for the good people they were and the deeds they did, not for the slow and agonizing diseases they died of.

That is true, however, a racer's death holds a special meaning towards the world of motorsports purely because motorsports is still such a dangerous profession. It holds a tragedy but also a reminder of how extraordinary these drivers actually are even in the modern age. You CANNOT downplay that.

Jackie Stewart once said:

"For a quick lap at the Nürburgring, you've probably experienced more in seven minutes and six or seven seconds than most people have experienced in all their life in the way of fear, in the way of tension, in the way of animosity towards machinery and to a racetrack."

As corny as this may sound...Race car drivers have reached a pinnicle point in a human life where they come SO close to death and elude it while reaching levels of emotion and competition that most people will never come understand in their life. THAT is why their deaths are so special. (And so tragic).

Of course racing isn't the only thing that is heavily embedded in the human condition. Many other people reach the pinnacle of human life in other forms such as art, film, construction, science, sports, etc. All those are worth making tributes (and people do) so why is racing any less? Have you ever seen the Filmmakers tribute in the Oscars? Emotional stuff. Arguably, all those people made films for "selfish" purposes, but the fact that they have reached to such levels of extraordinary achievements is worth reflecting.

Quote from wsinda :

No! A racer's death is not inevitable. It's an unnecessary death. It's reason to get angry because the constructors made unsafe cars and got away with it. Angry because for many decades people closed their eyes to the insane risks.

Arguably, a soldier's death in a war is not inevitable and is also meaningless...if you define death that way then in all honestly...no tributes of any kind should be made...ever.

Quote from wsinda :

A tribute to these deaths is an attempt to make them "right". THAT's closing your eyes.

A tribute to these deaths will only serve to outline the heavy price that is the world of motorsports. Very simple. You can interpret and twist that all you want. But the fact remains that so many have braved and died in a field of extraordinary conditions. This very fact alone is worth memorializing and other tributes were made for much less

Last edited by lizardfolk, Thu, 3 Sep 2009 21:20.

Quote from gezmoor :

In fact IMO it's sick, tasteless, tactless, insensitive, disgusting and anything but a tribute or honor to the memory of those that died. It's the worst kind of voyeurism.

Did you think my focus of that video was purely of violent deaths? I admit that my previous video seemed like that because it was just a name and a black screen then the crash. Yeh, I can see how I made the previous videos more about the crashes than the drivers themselves.

In my remake, I tried to put a human face to the drivers. I found as many pictures as I could (it was very difficult because many were obscure before their death) and some of the footage were of the aftermath of the crashes so you cant really say that I intended this video to satisfy sadistic voyeuristic pleasures.

If you REALLY want to see a distasteful crash compilation, take a look at the other "tributes" where they just put random fatal crashes to satanic or punk rock. THAT is distasteful and it usually left me angry.

The purpose of my tributes (imho) is clearly opposite of those types of videos. I've gotten emails and PMs from people who have said that they cried watching my tributes. THAT is my intent. It is a focus on tragedy, not violence (as many others are).

I also showed this video to a friend and he said, after watching he had much more respect for racecar drivers and racing in general.

Those two responses is what I am after. If you feel offended by the videos I apologize, however, I sincerely believe that you have misinterpreted my intent of these videos. (Or drew up your own conclusions without watching them)

If you strongly feel otherwise I'm prepared to defend my position.

Lizard

Quote from evilpimp :

Looks like Montreal will be the NASCAR rain race every year :P. Sucks for Ambrose, shit happens xD.

I say NASCAR needs more Canada races for more rain races

Although going over to UK courses (and rockingham) wouldn't be a bad idea..heck with the UK it's like 200% chance of rain anyways

Quote from PMD9409 :

"Well, we had way too many restarts at the end. NASCAR should of just parked the 66 because he was wrecking half the field. Carl got into me a couple times on the restarts, I'm surprised he didn't try to divebomb me on the last turn. Andrew (Ranger) was good all day, pretty agressive there near the end. Oh, and the rain was stupid because no one seemed to be able to control these cars, maybe its just the low-level of drivers compared to Sprint Cup."

*turns and storms off*

I'd knew he'd complain about racing in the rain :rolleyes:

He obviously didnt watch the 2008 Montreal race (before that caution wreck) cause that race was impressively clean.

Quote from UncleBenny :

He said what, one sentence and walked away? If Busch would have done that he would have been called out for crying and whining. Ambrose does it, and he's a man? Not that I have a problem with him walking away, if I was him I would have been pissed at myself. I just thought it was really funny when I saw him do that after the race and thought to myself "bet if that was Kyle Busch people would be jumping all over him".

The thing is...he admitted it has his mistake. He didn't blame Edwards for his botch, nor did he complain about NASCAR throwing that many cautions because that DID ruin is race. Much more than his mistake imho.

I think the only moment where he was "kyle buschish" was when he complained on the radio that Edwards pushed him a little after T2 (this was way b4 the large string of cautions brought out by the 66). I think he also complained about Andrew Ranger being too aggressive, but if you look at Ranger back in his ChampCar days and his recent CASCAR races...that's just the kind of driver he is. He's almost like Jason Plato.

Marcos' walkaway was standard. I can't say how many times I've seen F1 and IndyCar drivers just walk away from an interview after a very disappointing finish. It was good of Marcos to just say it was his mistake.

Kyle Busch probably would have complained about NASCAR, then complain about Edwards, then complain about the rain and to throw it all in, perhaps even complain about Circuit Gilles Villeneuve as well.

Quote from hansonator69 :

Round 10 of LFSCART conflicts with this race if its moved.

Exactly why I had originally moved this race...please dont jump to conclusion people...this schedule isn't exactly random....

Quote from PMD9409 :

Going the opposite way, Steven Wallace is an idiot.

NASCAR needs a better procedure for cautions on road courses...Steven Wallace practically ruined Marcos' race cause every caution unnecessarily destroyed Marcos' massive lead.

Quote from Sueycide_FD :

I'll give ALMS 2 years before the GT2 class goes south

I disagree, GT2 action in ALMS is fantastic. I even still watch old vids of the Flying Lizards duel against Ferraris

I think Rolex might be the one in trouble...

I'm so gutted for Ambrose

Absolutely amazing but horrid finish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUvWYDP5Dtk

Steven Wallace should have been told to just park it for causing like 4 cautions in a row towards that wet end....

Heard rumors that the Kyoto oval is double grooved with the stock car in which you can run side by side consistently lap after lap.

Dont know if this is actually the case but if it is, then this will make a great race

Anyone can answer why Kyle Busch has double blinking backlights and double wipers? What...does he want to be special or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nflp-m7g6Ws

Considering that V8 Supercar drivers can race V8s in the rain with slicks, it's no surprise that Ambrose took the pole...but great job for the NASCAR guys getting quite close in the end and keeping the qualifying clean

Great job for Marcos Ambrose getting his second Nationwide pole and awesome to see NASCAR qualifying in the rain for the first time

http://www.nascar.com/video/bu ... mon.quals.ambrose.nascar/

Finally good to see NASCAR tackle qualifying in rain and it was a good show

Last edited by lizardfolk, Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:55.