Franchitti wins third Indycar title

Dario Franchitti sealed his third Indycar championship victory at the Homestead oval in Miami.

Will Power led the championship going into the final race but he brushed the wall and broke his right-rear suspension shortly after half distance. He briefly returned to the track after repairs but later retired for good.

Franchitti survived a scare when Milka Duno lost control and crashed in front of him late in the race.

But he finished the race in eighth place which was enough to secure the title by five points.

Franchitti’s team mate Scott Dixon won the race ahead of Danica Patrick and Tony Kanaan – the Andretti Autosport duo disputing second place until the chequered flag fell.

Power had led the championship after every round of the season except following the race in Texas, where Franchitti moved ahead for one round.

Franchitti’s championship is his third consecutive win in years when he has participated in the series. He also won in 2007 and 2009 but missed the 2008 championship while making an unsuccessful bid at racing in NASCAR.

In 1999 he tied on points with Champ Car champion Juan Pablo Montoya but lost the championship as Montoya had won more races.

Read more: Why you should watch?óÔéĽ?Ş IndyCar

Advert | Go Ad-free

53 comments on Franchitti wins third Indycar title

  1. TommyB (@tommyb89) said on 3rd October 2010, 1:57

    With about twenty laps to go the commentators said that Franchitti had now official won the title. Why was this the case? Surely if he dropped a few places Power would have won it.

    The Indy Car points system is ridiculously complicated.

    • Enigma (@enigma) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:04

      I guess Power didn’t get any points, because he didn’t finish 90% of the race. The commentators said Franchitti is the champion around lap 180, which would make 90%. So even if Franchitti would retire at that point, he’d score 10 points and win the title by one point.

      • Enigma (@enigma) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:05

        That’s the way I see it, not sure if it’s correct.

        • Commentators were talking out of their behinds, he needed at least P10 for the title. Power got points anyway, it’s the stupid points system that awards points to all starters.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:22

            I think it goes:
            1st: 50
            2nd: 40
            3rd: 35
            4th: 32
            5th-10th: 2 points less per position
            11th-17th: 1 point less per position
            18th-25th: 12
            Lower than 25th: 10
            Lead most laps: 2
            Pole Position: 1

            Definately complicated.

    • miguelF1O (@) said on 5th October 2010, 0:18

      anyway power should have won he is the best racer period.

      • xabregas said on 5th October 2010, 12:41

        Power has great ( my favorit guy out there ) potencial but still needs to be much better on ovals, that´s why he lost the championship and Dario won.
        Even if Power didn´t had that incident with the wall sureally he woud have lost the championship anyway.
        Next year he ´ll get another chance.

  2. JT19 (@jt19) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:22

    So that’s a British guy clawing back a deficit from an Australian to win the Championship. Oh how to hear that phrase again this year!! I have faith in you LH

  3. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:25

    Loved how Milka Duno left the race while Danica fought with Kanaan in an incredible way…

    I’m not an usual follower of Indycar, but… I really want Milka to leave the sport now… she’s useless!

  4. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:31

    Note to self: don’t tune into MotoGP tonight. The Australian commentators are going to be bitterly disappointed by this. They were really talking Will Power up when it became obvious Casey Stoner couldn’t win in MotoGP again. Now they’re going to be pinning all their hopes of Mark Webber.

  5. newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1) said on 3rd October 2010, 2:34

    Loved the race, although as I tweeted earlier, Its difficult to explain to my family, of which none are particular motorsports fans why cars driving round in circles for 200 laps is interesting.

    • Sideshow Bob said on 3rd October 2010, 2:54

      It isn’t interesting. Road racing is incomparably better.

      Having said that, I would support a move to have a single oval Grand Prix on the F1 calendar, since you could make an argument that in the premier World Championship there should be an oval event.

      • Enigma (@enigma) said on 3rd October 2010, 3:03

        Completely agree. And it should be in Indianapolis.

      • I don’t know why you could make that argument. Surely then there should be a dirt race, a point-to-point race, a regularity race and a drift event? There’s just as much reason for them as for an oval race.

        • Mike said on 3rd October 2010, 9:04

          Drift? … If you are Ken Block and go faster when you do it, then for sure… If not you an attention seeking numbskull who’s killing his tyres for a pointless reason…

          One argument I can see for it is that it would allow smaller teams to consider biasing their design towards high speed circuits, to improve their chances. Overall, this will make the season more interesting… At the moment I think too many of the tracks are quite similar, and this I would imagine limits the scope of design directions the designers can push towards.

          • but drift is just another form of motorsport, just the same as oval racing! Surely if there’s an argument for oval racing the same arguments could be applied to drifting!

            How amazing would that be to see? F1 cars drifting around a track. Its a new challenge for the drivers. And I’m sure it’d be really popular in the US, who apparently aren’t capable of enjoying racing on a road circuit (as the supporters of oval racing keep saying oval racing is apparently the key to US acceptance).

          • Daniel said on 4th October 2010, 8:00

            Oval is still racing – trying to get from the start to the finish as quickly as possible. Drifting is not racing in that respect.

            I can see an argument for a single oval track. But you shouldn’t have 2 races with the same corner configuration in the championship.

            A lot of historic grand prix circuits, whilst not being true ovals had elements of the modern ovals. I’m talking tracks like the original Monza, AVUS and Brooklands. Nothing like these banked tracks currently exists on the calendar. It’s something that’s missing.

            What I do hate about ovals though is the number of safety cars. I hate it when because some drongo at the rear of the field ploughs into the wall, we have to let every one catch the leader – that’s not a motor race, but rather a series of sprints.

          • nik (@nik) said on 5th October 2010, 18:12

            “but drift is just another form of motorsport”

            ye but we are talking about a diff form of circuit, not racing.

            bit like high downforce, low downforce, street, permanent, etc.

            I would love to see an oval race in F1 but it won’t happen because the speeds will be too high and it requires a completely different kind of car with a completely diff type of chassis that is run on todays f1 circuits (the banking causes all fluids to lean to one side).

            Being so different it will raise the budget required from teams.

        • CNSZU said on 3rd October 2010, 9:05

          Totally agree, Ben. F1 is racing of the purest quality, it should never be allowed to be influenced by lesser standards.

      • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 3rd October 2010, 10:55

        Driving around in circles isn’t as easy as just driving around in circles. Think of how easy it is in Indy for your car to crash or for your strategy to be ruined by a Caution period and then wonder why the best still end up winning the championship. Think of all the people who think F1 is “easy” and how silly you must think they are, and then you’ll see why you under-rate Indy (which has lots of road courses and street circuits too, by the way).

        And we really should have an oval race at Indianapolis, even if with a few token corners to appease people. Like this: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4081036

        • why “should” we?

          There still hasn’t been a good reason given why F1 “should” have an oval race. Just because its more difficult than people think isn’t a reason.

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 3rd October 2010, 11:43

            It’s an expression for when you want something to happen to the point of it appearing to be a necessity without it actually being so.

            But okay, here are the reasons for it:

            1) There’s a precedent: F1 drivers used to race at the Indy 500 and it counted towards the championship.
            2) The Indy 500 is still considered part of the Triple Crown and it would be nice to see that revived in some small way, though it wouldn’t be the real Indy 500 obviously.
            3) It’s a new challenge for the drivers and engineers.
            4) It’s something different to spice up the calendar with.
            5) It would be a great way to bring American fans into F1 and hopefully convince Indy Car lovers that there’s merit to F1.
            6) We’d have a new high-speed race to counteract the growing number of street circuits.
            7) We’d have another race that isn’t dependant on aerodynamic downforce like most of them are.
            8) We could have a back-to-back with Montréal and then go to Texas later in the year before Brazil, when it will be cooler and would provide a natural stepping-stone to the final race (assuming Brazil stays last).
            9) Because of its distance from Texas you could choose which American race to go to if one was too far away for convenience (especially if you’re an American driving there, or doing a double header with the Canadian race) and they wouldn’t intrude to much into each other’s markets, so that’s more money for F1 and the teams.

            As opposed to, I guess, a dislike of oval races and underestimation of American sports fans based on pre-conceived notions. I’m not saying that’s you, but it’s the most common drivel spouted in opposition to oval racing in F1.

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 3rd October 2010, 11:46

            I didn’t know #8 would do that!

          • James_mc said on 3rd October 2010, 22:36

            Plus Monza used to run on an oval. (Or at least had a banked section.

          • When the Indy 500 was part of the championship it was pretty much totally ignored by the F1 teams and drivers. It was only later in the 60’s – after it had been dropped from the WC – that Brabham, Clark, McLaren etc tried their hand at it.

            The third part of the triple crown is Le Mans 24 hours, should that also be added to the WC? As you rightly point out, just having a race at Indy doesn’t make it part of the triple crown, winning an F1 oval race won’t take you a step towards the triple. It would be a major cop-out to try to claim that.

            The Monza oval was only ever used in conjuntion with the road circuit, which is analogous to having the final banked corner when the GP was at Indy. Its clutching at straws to suggest that F1 should have an oval race becuase Monza used to have 2 banks in a 10km lap. And besides, for a few years they chopped the banking up with chicanes – maybe F1 should do that if they return to banked corners. There’s just as much historical justification for it.

            F1 has survived perfectly well for 50+ years without anything like an oval race. The championship doesn’t need an oval race.

      • If f1 ran on the Indy “oval” there would be what we call a serious injury within the first year or two and it would be aborted. The US motor sport community has a very different view to what kind of injury rate is acceptable compared to the rest of the world.

  6. Steve K said on 3rd October 2010, 3:16

    Funny, many IRL fans think road course racing is boring. I live them both for different reasons. But how anyone could think cars going 210 MPH inches apart is boring is beyond me. Do you people go to the moon on a weekly basis?

  7. Fred Schechter said on 3rd October 2010, 4:09

    The Danica/Tony battle of the last few laps was amazing, I can’t believe we didn’t have anyone in the wall, especially with all the weaving Tony did, you’d think he’d at least have made a vest or socks.

    The broadcast quality continues it’s trip to crapville, and new blood there would go far to renovate the series, new car in 2012 or not.

    Congrats to Dario for a well fought consistent and fast season.

    The roundy round is different than road racing, but being able to have fans watch a complete race at an event can be vastly more satisfying than sitting along a green patch and watching only 1 corner of a massive race. (keep in mind, F1 and road racing are my favorites). TV bridges the gap, but the live events should be just as exciting, road or oval.

    • SloMo said on 3rd October 2010, 5:35

      I was thoroughly impressed with the Danica/TK battle for many reasons, least of which is that they are teammates allowed to race that hard to the end. However I was disappointed with the broadcast in that they cut away from the fantastic battle to show someone crossing the finish line in a time zone of his own. Also they kept showing Dario sluming around in 9th like it mattered to the race that was happening. Was definitely rooting for Power though he was the class of the field on road courses. Thats what makes Indy unique cant wait for some variation in cars but i think it has the distinct possibility of becoming an aero war like F1 and if so ending the close racing.

      • UneedAFinn2Win said on 3rd October 2010, 9:15

        There will be a development race going into 2012 on the aerokit designers/providers side of things, but most likely two or three packages will become norm by the end of the year, and development slows down.

        BUT, F1-style aero war is not going to happen in Indycar, because no-one is getting exclusive aero, any package has to be available to all teams for 70K USD.
        And as for close racing, Indycar has been known to change the aero mid-season just to get the cars a few inches closer on ovals (in 2008 or -09, can’t remember) so it will be strictly regulated and more importantly, enforced.

  8. Faraz said on 3rd October 2010, 9:18

    I’m Sorry but I watched the race last night after 50 laps I got so bored I decided to watch Bahrain GP 2010 highlights.

    Though a good rave to Dario.

  9. Enigma (@enigma) said on 3rd October 2010, 10:15

    Just realised that Power would’ve won the championship if he hadn’t pressed the pit limiter button in Long Beach.

  10. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 3rd October 2010, 10:45

    I fell asleep after Power’s trip to the pits, my own stupid fault :( But it was an interesting race before that too, shame I missed the late battles.

  11. Calum said on 3rd October 2010, 13:05

    Found this
    http://www.youtube.com/indycarseries
    Highlights of the title decinding race ;)

    Great night for Scottish-Italian racers yesterday, Dario’s obviously won the IRL and his brother Marino took the LMP2 win in the Lemans Series race!

    • BasCB said on 3rd October 2010, 18:17

      I just love how IndyCar has all the footage online. Still, watching the complete race is not really my thing on ovals.

      To me their coverage is pretty good with the info shown like top speeds.

  12. Soumya Banerjee said on 3rd October 2010, 13:35

    Congratulations to Dario Franchitti,well done.

  13. The man is clearly one of the finest drivers of his generation. It’s a shame we never got to see what Dario could do in a proper F1 car. Like many others, Montoya always said “Dario would have made it.”

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.