...I wrote a posting on autoracing1.com where I picked up on Robby Gordon's weekend comment that most ovals are unsafe for OW race cars. He is right, and it is largely due to the pre-eminence of NASCAR. Here is what I posted:

In the spirit of trying to move thinking forward, in the aftermath of a death at an open wheel oval track, I'm going to make a statement.
I read somewhere that Jeff Gordon has stated that oval tracks are unsuitable for open-wheel race cars.
I'm going to take that statement one step further.

The current generation and configuration of american oval race tracks are largely unsuitable and dangerous for open-wheel race cars.

The reason for this is that when a North American oval track is being built or updated, the #1 concern of the ownership is getting NASCAR dates. The holy grail is a Nextel Cup date, but a second-tier (Busch) or third-tier date (ARCA etc.) is also highly desirable. These dates usually sell-out. Open-wheel events are a long way down the pecking order of consideration.
As a result, oval tracks are optimized for non-aero closed-wheel race cars. The #1 concern is good "Stock" car racing.
Therein lies the problem, for a race track that is suitable for stock cars is usually not suitable for aero wing cars, which are capable of much higher cornering forces.
There are a number of oval tracks in the USA that have always been unsuitable for open-wheel winged cars. Talledega and Daytona are two examples. With wings and current horsepower levels, I shudder to think that sort of speeds a properly-sorted OW car would achieve at those two tracks. The speeds would probably be at the limit of human endeavour, and the insurers would have a fit.
Other superspeedway tracks are marginal. Indianapolis is a track where OW drivers are almost flat all of the way round in qualifying, with little or no lift in race trim. California Speedway is currently flat all of the way round, with the race set-up mainly consisting of seeing how much drag can be removed from the car.
Texas Motor Speedway is flat all of the way round if the car is well set-up. The IRL can race there because of its horsepower range; CART infamously tried and failed to race there because their horsepower range took cornering forces into the "Death Zone" where drivers were starting to experience symptoms of G-Loc.
Homestead is an example of an oval track that was originally OK for open-wheel cars, with lap speeds in the 185-190 mph range. The cars would have to lift for corners, because the track was almost flat. However, when NASCAR raced there, it was found that there was only one racing line for stock cars, which limited overtaking and racing opportunities. So...they increased the bank angles on the corners.
The result is that NASCAR drivers have two racing lines at Homestead, and the NASCAR fans are happy. However, the increased bank angle has resulted in the open wheel cars being essentially flat-out all of the way round, with speeds having rised to 215-220 mph. In the race on Sunday, the leading cars seemed to be flat all of the way round, with the only drop in rpm coming from tire scrub on corner entry.
This is an underlying trend...with a few exceptions, modern american oval tracks are optimized for stock cars, not winged racing cars, and as a result many of those ovals are unsuitable for open-wheel race cars.
It is my belief that any combined OW series (when it emerges and whatever it is called) should seriously trim the number of oval tracks on the schedule, and only race on oval tracks where speeds are controllable and where driver skill (other than eyes-shut throttle-stuck-to-the-floor bravery) is part of the overall winning equation. Unless this is made a strategic goal of the series, I forsee two outcomes:

1. Future serious accidents and possible deaths as the high speeds result in mechanical failures or human errors
2. Continuance of a policy of optimizing oval tracks for stock cars at the expense of open wheel cars

In the long-term, (2) will not change until open wheel racing recovers enough market share to have influence over racing venues. However, making a decision to not race on unsuitable tracks in the short-term puts down a marker for the long-term.

However, it seems that some folks have to be fighting the IRL vs. CCWS war 24x7. Within a short period of time, this gem appeared in the thread:

This is always such a transparent argument.
Eliminate ovals, and you eliminate the IRL. What could be easier?
It gets couched in different words, as gshelvin has here, but it is the same old tired argument.
No one makes these guys race on ovals. If there is no one to race, there are no races. Let market forces dictate what it necessary. It always has in the past; it will in the future.

So I responded thusly:

I just knew that somebody would barge into this discussion and attempt to throw strawman arguments on the table about people attempting to abolish the IRL...tbyars, you win the award. Time to grow up and engage in a discussion on its merits instead of inventing straw men.

my response was followed by the following two:
(from tbyars)

Truth hurts, huh, gshelvin. Your agenda has always been clear. You knew someone would say it because you KNOW it is the truth. Very obvious. Simply a troll.

(Note that he can't even spell my name correctly)
(from indycool)

gshev, I agree with tb on this one. You are using the tragedy at Homestead to promote an anti-oval (read: anti-IRL) agenda. I hate it when people play political "safety cards." Because it always seems like when they do, it comes around and bites someplace else (sadly and tragically, as it did with Scott Brayton, Jeff Krosnoff and Gary Avrin in 1996). And THAT's scary.

Given that the responses have done nothing other than bring up a bogus strawman argument that I never made, I decided to up the ante:

indycool and tbyars, I regard the suggestion that I am promoting some sort of agenda to neuter the IRL to be an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of other folks on this board.
Go back and read my starting post again, and see if you can improve your comprehension of the English language. Then come back here and kindly stop dropping strawman drivel and lowering the standard of debate. If you are that concerned about my "agenda", please feel free to complain to the moderators. I am prepared to defend my posting to them at any time.

Watch for the next exciting instalment. If the mods want to ban me, then that is their perogative. However, I hope that they can understand that there are some folks who cannot consider an argument on its merits, and instead resort to tired paranoid claptrap. (The rest of the discussion, by the way, has been pretty good, with folks making some good points).