In IndyCar racing, you don't have to block to be blocking
Although Brian Barnhart has his
defenders – and at least one of them has posted a comment on this blog in which
he quoted at length from the pre-race drivers’ meeting at Sunday’s Honda Indy
Edmonton showing that the IndyCar chief steward had specifically warned against
anyone doing what Helio Castroneves was black-flagged for doing late in the
race – there are gazillions of people out there who still think he should
have his head read.
Barnhart
called Castroneves’ actions on the restart with only a few laps to go,
“blocking,” and if that was blocking (watch the video) then we might as well
throw in the towel because racing as we know it is doomed.
With
this call, Brian Barnhart, in his role as chief steward, is not only telling racing drivers how to drive but
where on the circuit they may drive during a race, which is poppycock.
This
is what I define as blocking: You block somebody when you drive in front of him
or her to impede his or her progress. By your actions, you force that person to
hit the brakes or deviate from their line. That is blocking. Helio Castroneves
did none of that in Edmonton on Sunday.
Anyway,
the die is cast. This is what Brian Barnhart said in defending his actions.
"The rules are clear on it. In every drivers' meeting we talk about it.
On road courses we divide the track physically in half, and from the braking
point to entry they're told you can only be on the inside half if you're
attempting to overtake someone.
"If you're on the inside half while someone is trying to overtake you,
it's blocking.”
So there you
have it. You don’t have to block anybody to be blocking.
Okay, next year
at the Honda Indy Toronto, using the definition of blocking as defined in the
previous two paragraphs by Brian Banhart, I am going to record (tape) the
telecast of the race in order to keep an exact record of the number of
incidents of blocking that will happen at Turn 3, which is at the end of Lake
Shore Blvd. I’ll post them all, right up here on this website, too.
Keeping track
will be fairly easy to do because
I think I can
safely estimate that at the start of the race and during the expected numerous
restarts, going right back through the field, that about 50 per cent of the
drivers will be blocking at Turn 3, as defined above.
How do I know? Because they were blocking all over the place at Turn 3 during this year's Honda Indy Toronto and have been blocking going into Turn 3 for years.
And I mean real blocking; not Barnhart's imaginary blocking.
If Brian Barnhart is still employed by the Indy Racing League when next July's Honda Indy Toronto rolls around, it's sure going to be crowded in the pits with all those drive-throughs.


Barnhart did something worse than take a win away from Helio Castroneves. He took a win away from Roger Penske and you don't piss off The Captain. If Will Power had been the direct beneficiary of that call (ie: Power wins the race) then it's one thing in the Penske camp but Team Ganassi and Scott Dixon were the lucky recipients. That wont' sit well.
Prediction, after the season's over Barnhart will be replaced.
Posted by: allenparkpete | 07/27/2010 at 11:35 AM
If the Barnhart-rule is applied at Corner 3, effectively every car that wants to pass and puts its nose inside the other in front of him, gets a free pass-through without working for the pass.
It would mean the end of racing (it was as of Edmonton).
There would be zero incident at Corner 3 and the grandstand would sit empty.
Brian Barnhart has worked effectively regarding the safety of the IRL and stopping the carnage on the ovals. I liked what he did there.
But Brian Barnhart has no clue about road racing.
He must let go immediately from his race control position!
(And, CharLIE Whiting also must go immediately in Formula 1! That series is another piece of disaster.)
Posted by: Adam | 07/27/2010 at 12:01 PM
Visit the Forums at indycar.com and you can see the magnitude of the furor over this. Fans don't like their intelligence to be insulted the way the Indycar officials did.
Posted by: Adam | 07/28/2010 at 08:46 AM
The most ridiculous interpretaion of BLOCKING, that I have ever
heard of. Another nail in the IRL coffin!
Posted by: David White | 07/28/2010 at 12:22 PM
Brian Barnhart wants to be a parade marshal, not a race steward.
He has no concept of racing or what draws people to open-wheel racing. He needs to be re-assigned or given his walking papers IMMEDIATELY before he ruins another race, and drives hordes of fans away from the sport -- or at least what used to be a sport before Barnhart got his hands on it.
Posted by: Stephen Terrell | 07/28/2010 at 01:56 PM
I like the comparison some call the Barnhart blocking rule same as slot-car racing. Contrary to Barnhart's belief however, that is not what the fans want to see.
Barnhart's other argument for his rule is "saving money" by reducing potential crash damage as a result of the blocking moves. Well, if Indycar racing wants to save money this way, they should fold the class because they are obviously having a much bigger problem budget-wise. The IRL teams perhaps should look at participating in the Formula Ford category instead.
Posted by: Adam | 07/28/2010 at 02:56 PM
I had reviewed the Toronto Indy race again, and there were at least 10 instances/battles where the leading car on the straight approaching a corner took the "unnatural" inside lane. To Barnhart's definition they were blocking too, but no black flag was issued to any of them.
Commentators Reid and Goodyear even mentioned this rule being talked about at the drivers meeting to be applied at Corner 3. I though it was a Toronto-special rule.
Even if the rule is a rule, Barnhart must be fired for inconsistent and selective application!
The fans are left in the dark about any of the IRL rules, by the way. Why?
Posted by: Adam | 07/29/2010 at 08:13 AM