Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged)

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

Kevin and Cavin followed the logic through in their discussion tonight, and got back to the real world. If you build new cars, and they're all the same too, does it get you any viewers? Will all the people who don't watch now give a squat?

Uh huh.

Based on everything I have heard more boredom is ahead cause that is what's on the table. They are going to miss the boat I believe. These guys are clueless on how to present an exciting product. This is a clan that only recently acknowledged that junior formula series were REALLY the developmental series not USAC. Everyone else has known that for decades but the hulmangeorges only just came to that realization. Out of touch.

I don't believe indycar, with the few hundred thousand casual fans that exist, has many out there under 35 that really care anymore or even know about it. None of these guys are household names anymore. Another few more years of malaise and dithering and that will be all she wrote.

[JagtechOhio]

You've convinced me, Star. Cartoons really are the best way to get the point across:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...st_published=1

[climb]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Of course. All these chassis guys are going to bring in a chassis on price ...

THEY don't want competition, they have a business to run. They don't care about what fans or drivers have to deal with or what they want. They are not in that business. Their business is cranking cars and parts out the door to whoever. Of course these guys are going to give you a sob story about how rough it would be to have competition.

Well IRL had competition for a decade, from what i can remember. Unfortunately the cost is a necessity you always seem to miss.

Everybody would like to drive R&R , Porsche or Ferrari, but most don't: wonder why?

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

The other thing is that now the realization is sinking in, that there will be only one chassis constructor to cap costs, the same logic has not entered into the discussion about the engines.

IF Honda continues to play as indicated, there isn't much sense in guessing who will pay for the privilege of splitting the market with them.

Another engine would likely not appear until 2013: so all the 2012 chassis will be built to accept a Honda V6. If you eventually have an option of fitting a 4 cyl, you have to build or buy the conversion components and gamble on the fortunes of an untested package. Other engines are only going to come from a full blown manufacturer development and lease program, according to Barnhart.

The Iconic decision is promised for June 30, no telling what or when announcements will be made. It goes to Bernard and then the IMS Board. Any engine manufacturer must submit a proposal by Homestead (October) to be considered for competition in 2012.

AER builds the 2.0L 4 cyl. turbo badged as a Mazda for sportscars right now...they are sitting on the shelf...refine that package to meet the horsepower targets established by IndyCar and there is your second engine manufacturer right there.

[JagtechOhio]

Sure, if Mazda's going to back it, and AER can supply the minimum number of teams mandated by the IRL with a competitively priced product. Who's running those now, beside Dyson and Interscope?

The numbers that Pruett and Miller printed can't be accurate. Delta says that's a $150K engine.

Then all it will take is enough teams to sign the lease and gamble it will be a fair match in performance and reliability to the Honda. And be able to afford to modify or buy the conversion bits for their new chassis, which will most likely be built for a stressed V6 install.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by climb

Well IRL had competition for a decade, from what i can remember. Unfortunately the cost is a necessity you always seem to miss.

Everybody would like to drive R&R , Porsche or Ferrari, but most don't: wonder why?

If you have a bargain basement product you get bargain basement fans. I thought this sport was supposed to be the pinnacle of American motorsport, but I guess not.

The cost is one issue, but you also have to consider the revenue. For many years manufacturers were spending $100-$200 million a year on CART and the irl. How much is spent now? Honda charges teams a million bucks for an old nail engine and buys some race tickets for it's employees. Whoop te do.

Why do people fear letting in multiple chassis, engines and tire companies? This is supposed to be competitive sport.

[JagtechOhio]

Pinnacle? There's a new deal in town, bub.

It's spelled pinochle now.

[djb]

pinnochio? 'cept it grows sorta pointy like a IRL nose

[JagtechOhio]

Much more appropriate, thanks

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That is possible but a run on the Euro doesn't necessarily mean there will be a global depression, that depends on how severe the run is, it could be bad enough just to cripple the EC.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Ok consumer base; people will always opt for the cheaper price. Well yes F1 was becoming very expensive and a budget cap was necessary. However the problem with that is new teams can't test in the off season, so car development takes place during GPs, which is not ideal.

What's it matter if teams can't test in the offseason if they don't have an F1 team to start with because they couldn't afford to be on the grid? What's it matter if you have a great, super-high technology racing formula with no limits but no one can afford to actually do it?

For the remaining teams on the grid, their teams are not worth a whole lot if no one can afford to buy them.

Indeed non EC countries in Europe will be effected, though the UK is in a different situation as it does alot of trade outside the EC, namely with Commonwealth countries; those are the countries that once were part of the British Empire like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Kenya, Nigeria etc., so there are trading alternatives to the EC.

I did a google search and found this article describing 2008 trade. If you find anything for 2009 (you won't for 2010 yet), feel free to post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/y...in-Europe.html

Britain exported more goods last year to the single German region of North Rhine-Westphalia than to China and India combined. It sold four times as much to Spain as to the whole of Latin America.

Europe may lack glamour but it remains the "meat-and-potato" foundation of Britain's trade. The EU accounted for 57pc of exports in 2008. If you throw in Russia, Norway, and Switzerland, the figure rises to 62pc. The EU's single market has frayed at the edges over the last year. Countries have attached strings to stimulus packages. Nicolas Sarkozy, France's President, said (then recanted) that French automakers may not spend rescue money on plants in Eastern Europe. Greece ordered its banks to cut exposure in the Balkans.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

The only way out I think for indycar is to open it up to all comers with chassis, engines and tires. That's the only way you are going to bring money, competition and interest into this tough environment.

I'll agree with that. That's why I shouted tubeframes from the rooftops. Every county in Indiana has a fab shop that can weld a tubeframe Indycar.

And then there are tons of engines out there. They greatly curtailed the number of available engine builders by going with a turbocharger. And if they want to democratize the engine, they should make it so private non-carmaker engine builders are allowed without a badge, which we don't know yet.

If you have a bargain basement product you get bargain basement fans.

NASCAR's seems to have done pretty well for itself for the last 20 years.

I always roll my eyes about the "it's the technology that draws the fans" argument. Explain why NASCAR became huge beginning in the late '80s and peaking in early '00s if that's the case, and a lot of people that started watching NASCAR in that time were Indycar fans in the '80s.

John Andretti had a great quote in the Indianapolis Star on Race Day: "if you get a single person more to watch a race by changing the car, you've performed a miracle".

This is a clan that only recently acknowledged that junior formula series were REALLY the developmental series not USAC.

Well, to your other point, those junior formula series are single make, single constructor. USAC has multiple engines and multiple constructors. What you really want the IRL to follow is the USAC model.

Here is the Hoosier Hundred Entry List for the USAC Silver Crown Series the Friday before the 500 this year. This is the greatest evidence I can provide for anyone that wants multiple constructors and multiple engines that tubeframes and non-turbocharged engines of some displacement are the way to go. And it's not like this is a one-race deal, this is true for all USAC national events across three national series. You can take the period mountainstar considers the golden era of Indycar racing and different cars and engines and it wouldn't even come close to approaching what you see below.

http://www.hoosierhundred.com/

Constructor

Beast - 20
Eagle - 1
Maxim - 3
F5 - 2
Stanton - 1
DRC - 2
GRP - 1
J & J - 2
Drinan - 2

Engine

Foxco - 1
Foxco Chevy - 2
Ford - 1
Kistler Chevy - 3
Mopar - 2
Dodge - 1
Gaerte - 2
Toyota - 5
Chevy - 10
Speedway Mopar - 1
Hampshire - 1
Dynotec - 2
Roush-Yates Ford - 1

(manufacturers combined: Ford - 2, Dynotec - 1, Hampshire - 1, Dodge/Mopar - 4, Chevy - 15, Foxco - 1, Toyota - 5, Gaerte - 2)

[JagtechOhio]

A tube frame IndyCar. Ok.

"Q. Brian, you said there were some things about the rules you've not decided yet. What about like cost, lease to own? Where are you with a couple of those things? Independent builders?"

"BRIAN BARNHART: We're going to probably stay in the same area that we are now and the engines will continue to be leased. The biggest reason for that, certainly anticipating manufacturer competition, is the protection of intellectual property."

Including leases, rebuilds and replacements, Honda is grossing far above $25M, probably closer to $30M. They haven't had major development or manufacturing costs to cover since 2006.

Even after sponsoring three races and all of their operating costs, they have to be clearing something. It's a question of how many millions, and how much profit they might trim to support thr IRL.

If a competitor is allowed to independantly supply teams, without kicking back major subsidies to the IRL by paying badging rights or sponsoring races, how does that work for Honda?

It doesn't. The independant can re-invest his profits in R&D work, underbid Honda for the lease cost, grab more market share, and hack Honda off. Maybe kick their a$$, too.

The day the IRL caved to Honda again, by announcing the spec to fit Honda's schedule and requirements, they cemented their continuing relationship with the Series partner. Any other competitor will have to enter with a similar level of commitment.

At which point, according to Berkman of HPD, the price goes up. And with the IRL declaring that the lease cost will be mandated, there will be no price incentive to teams or significant reduction from today's cost, whether they sign with Honda or the phantom competitor.

"And if they want to democratize the engine, they should make it so private non-carmaker engine builders are allowed without a badge, which we don't know yet."

That's what they should have done, and could have done, a long time ago. And it isn't going to happen now, either.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

Even after sponsoring three races and all of their operating costs, they have to be clearing something. It's a question of how many millions, and how much profit they might trim to support thr IRL.

That's why when Honda Corporate in Japan pulled out of F1 they didn't touch the IRL. The IRL engine is not Honda, it's Honda Performance Development, and HPD does the program more to provide their employees employment. If they're not making money on it, why would they do it? And it's not HPD promoting the series or sponsoring races, that'd be another branch in the company.

If a competitor is allowed to independantly supply teams, without kicking back major subsidies to the IRL by paying badging rights or sponsoring races, how does that work for Honda?

It doesn't. The independant can re-invest his profits in R&D work, underbid Honda for the lease cost, grab more market share, and hack Honda off. Maybe kick their a$$, too.

The day the IRL caved to Honda again, by announcing the spec to fit Honda's schedule and requirements, they cemented their continuing relationship with the Series partner. Any other competitor will have to enter with a similar level of commitment.

You have to look at the flipside too, if the IRL didn't do what Honda wanted, what would the future look like? The one flaw in the program I propose, what I call the USAC model, is you'd likely see far less series and race track investment. USAC/CART never had an Offenhauser 500 or a Cosworth Grand Prix when those engines were dominant. (note: in an open engine era where anyone could build one, Offy dominated the '50s, '60s, and '70s, and Cosworth had a 6-year-long winning streak of every Indycar race in the '80s).

If Honda didn't get what they want, for all we know they could pull out entirely and then where would the IRL stand? It'd be 2005 all over again as they'd have to go kiss another manufacturer's ring to guarantee supply and that company would have all the leverage.

At which point, according to Berkman of HPD, the price goes up. And with the IRL declaring that the lease cost will be mandated, there will be no price incentive to teams or significant reduction from today's cost, whether they sign with Honda or the phantom competitor.

The one issue then is Honda will only supply certain teams at the front of the field, the rest of the teams will get the phantom competitor, which, let's be honest, will most likely not be competitive for awhile until they've figured things out.

"And if they want to democratize the engine, they should make it so private non-carmaker engine builders are allowed without a badge, which we don't know yet."

That's what they should have done, and could have done, a long time ago. And it isn't going to happen now, either.

From a purely competition standpoint, yes. And it's what I want. But there are underlying money issues too which none of us are party to. If Honda pulled track signage and promotion, where would the series stand? None of us know this information but it plays a driving role in the decision.

Not to mention certain teams on the grid due to their history would very much rather have Honda acquiesced instead of told Honda being rejected on what they wanted. If multiple carmakers, your certain Honda teams that'd be given money kickbacks would be Andretti, de Ferran due to his ties to Honda in ALMS (don't believe de Ferran didn't vouch for what Honda wanted in those ICONIC meetings either or kept from Honda what went on), Honda would probably take care of Rahal and he'd go back to full-time, probably Penske since he's owns a bunch of Honda dealerships. It's not good business to **** off a third of your participants.

I don't believe IRL fully wanted to go with this spec and that's why they waited so long to announce it from when we knew discussions first went on. I think the global recession knocked out a good number of maybes and they were stuck kissing Honda's ring hoping maybe a couple others will come along later. It's a bad time in the world for all top-class auto racing.

[gttouring]

so where would it go wrong if they had independent engine builders build engines from off the shelf components? sorry an EFI 6 or 7 liter V8 or V10 or DOCH 6 built at a Gasoline Alley race shop vs. a manufacturer branded engine bound by rules like a 2.4 L turbo 6.
that is the spirit of Indy. and stick it in any thing with open wheels that passes a safety test.
big whoop- any one and everyone will go race and see. if its too expensive it will sort itself out. as sad as IRL has been- it never has gone away it survives through bad and good decisions, it split into two ans came together again to still go on.
what don't the Indy Big wigs get?
just let people race and sanction it - i know we worry about Honda or VW paying a shop to build engines or reverse brand their technology- well seal the freaking engine for 3 races and have a claimer rule and spec on materials
it can't be hard and it wold be glorious
oh wait Can-am with open wheels sorry i 'm not so original

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

That's Newton's third law of physics.

What's it matter if teams can't test in the offseason if they don't have an F1 team to start with because they couldn't afford to be on the grid? What's it matter if you have a great, super-high technology racing formula with no limits but no one can afford to actually do it?

It matters for the very reasons I stated, in my previous post. Well due to the FIA's budget cap F1 is now more affordable, which is why there are new teams this season.

For the remaining teams on the grid, their teams are not worth a whole lot if no one can afford to buy them.

I don't think anyone's buying new teams at the moment.

I did a google search and found this article describing 2008 trade. If you find anything for 2009 (you won't for 2010 yet), feel free to post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/y...in-Europe.html

I never disputed that, I merely stated the UK has alternatives to Europe if the Eurozone has a major financial crisis and it looks like Spain is next; Russia, Norway, and Switzerland are not EC members.

So you read the Daily Telegraph?

[JagtechOhio]

OK Ryan, read your post and tell me where it is you still think that "we don't know yet" about independent engine builders.

As it pertains to the current IRL specs and financial state, that is. Tube frame cars, Honda F1 and USAC history notwithstanding.

[climb]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

If you have a bargain basement product you get bargain basement fans. I thought this sport was supposed to be the pinnacle of American motorsport, but I guess not.

Partially true, but the alternative is no product at all; the main challenge for motorsport now is survive in the wake for better times

Originally Posted by mountainstar

The cost is one issue, but you also have to consider the revenue. For many years manufacturers were spending $100-$200 million a year on CART and the irl. How much is spent now? ...

No, ms; cost is not one issue, cost is THE issue. And once and for all, stop living in the past; CART glorious era is dead and gone, like it or not.
Now companies at any level (manufacturers, sponsors etc) have to face redundancies all over the world, and budgets for racing have logically been shrinked. is it so difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Why do people fear letting in multiple chassis, engines and tire companies? This is supposed to be competitive sport.

I just repeat my previous question: why do a lot of people drive anonimous cars instead of Ferrari, Porsche, Bugatti and R&R? These are real cars, much better, aren't they!
So why most people insist on GM or Renault?

And why do many people eat McDonald's hamburgs instead of attending 3-Michelin star reastaurants?


Nobody say the single-make approach is the best ever; but it's the only currently affordable

[JagtechOhio]

climb, i don't think Star is any less of a pragmatist than you are. He experienced the results of bad decision making that has helped lead to the environment we're in today.

You look at today, and realize that the IRL is taking the only recourse that they see as available and viable.

I look at their choices and don't understand why they are being implemented in ways that produce so little gain.

The direction continues to be based on public announcements that lead nowhere, and optimistic projections that look beyond the facts on the ground.


The only immediacy created is in the talk: no remedial action has been taken on any level, and most of the hopeful seeds planted will bear little fruit.

I think that makes all three of us pragmatists.It's the guys running the show that I have my doubts about.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's Newton's third law of physics.

It applies to a lot of other things too.

So you read the Daily Telegraph?

just Evans-Pritchard, some of the other financial bits, and a little on rugby (play myself over here); the Telegraph and the FT are the best you can get on business for Britain

[climb]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

climb, i don't think Star is any less of a pragmatist than you are. He experienced the results of bad decision making that has helped lead to the environment we're in today.

You look at today, and realize that the IRL is taking the only recourse that they see as available and viable.

I look at their choices and don't understand why they are being implemented in ways that produce so little gain.

The direction continues to be based on public announcements that lead nowhere, and optimistic projections that look beyond the facts on the ground.


The only immediacy created is in the talk: no remedial action has been taken on any level, and most of the hopeful seeds planted will bear little fruit.

I think that makes all three of us pragmatists.It's the guys running the show that I have my doubts about.

jagtech mate, I'm not here to defend IRL past and/or current manegement choices; I'm just saying that chassis and engine competition is bound to rise costs, and it's absolutely unaffordable; just consider what's happening (even) in F1: the general trend is to reduce costs and, unfortunately, there's no reason(able) on Earth why IRL should blow against the wind.

[JagtechOhio]

My apology for wording it poorly, perhaps if I stated that they have reached the same inevitable conclusion you describe, it would have made more sense.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by climb

Nobody say the single-make approach is the best ever; but it's the only currently affordable

i
Based on what proof?
What series for ten years has allowed open competition where the market determines prices verses some god wannabe forcing everyone into the same whole.
It has become a chicken-little scare game of --WE CAN't DO THAT.
WHY?
BECAUSE!

This system puts money in only certain peoples pockets and they do not want it to change, no matter how badly it screws things up.

They will milk it till the cow is dry and then walk away.

[wnut]

Spec all the pieces you want to be standard and then let a range of people manufacture them.

I like the idea of tube chassis, but the safety would probably be severely compromised.

Would it be feasible to maufacture a carbon survival capsule and then bolt all the rest onto it or drop it into a space frame?

I personally don't like one make series as they just become an expensive clube!

As per Bob Riebe's post above.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

It applies to a lot of other things too.

But not necessarily covered her, though possibly on the Parc Fermé section here on 10-Tenths

just Evans-Pritchard, some of the other financial bits, and a little on rugby (play myself over here); the Telegraph and the FT are the best you can get on business for Britain

Of all the UK broadsheets it's about the best, though it used to be known as as the Torygraph. It's a little bit more like the Times used to be about 30 years ago.

It does have good sports journalism; I used to play Rugby, #6.

I must say I've really enjoyed this debate with you; civilized, good arguments on both sides.

Here's to the future of IndyCar racing; something we both are passionate about.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

I'll agree with that. That's why I shouted tubeframes from the rooftops. Every county in Indiana has a fab shop that can weld a tubeframe Indycar.

Because 200 mph in an open-wheeled, tube frame car is SUCH a great idea. The safety cell has to be a carbon fiber monocoque. It saves lives.