Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged)

[JagtechOhio]

Mr. Pink,

That was a wonderful piece of work, and saved me a ton of time and difficulty in communication. Thank you very much for taking the time to assist.

After now reading the additional details, this engine still looks like a viable candidate for testing by IndyCar.


Tack själv Mr. Skär

[Mr Pink]

Happy to help!

[Flyin Ryan]

"I think they've made a tremendous blunder by saying they've cut the costs by 45 percent," Partel commented. "Any sponsor is going to say that if the costs are that much cheaper then they're going to cut their sponsorship budget by an equal amount. That's something Bernie Ecclestone would never have done. He understands that you've got to push the value up, not decrease it."

Indeed at Long Beach back in 1980 Mo Nunn convinced the local Budweiser distributor to sponsor his Ensign team for the weekend for $50,000. Ecclestone got wind of the deal and took Nunn aside to give him a short but stern lecture.

"You bloody fool Mo," Ecclestone growled. "You've undersold yourself and undersold the rest of us too. Don't ever do this again. If you need some leverage to jack up the price call me and I'll help you out. But don't ever sell yourself cheap like this. You're hurting all of us."

"Exactly, we should be making it so only the super rich can be involved in this sport."

Partel also said the drivers quoted in this space last week asking for more power should start thinking more deeply about what's required from the sport in this day and age.

"It offends me as an American, counting the war dead week in and week out, to see the drivers clamoring for unnecessary power when they should be talking power-to-weight ratios," Partel remarked. "Frankly, I think the drivers should come to a realization that when they're clamoring for power they're going against the United States government and what the President of the United States has requested that we reduce our consumption of energy.

"It's very offensive to hear the drivers clamoring for more power when they should be asking for a better power-to-weight ratio and much better efficiency overall. They're making a lot of money off this country, its economy and the American racing community, and they have to start to understand that they have a social responsibility as race car drivers.

"Just wanting to have more power is bull****," Partel added. "These are nice guys. I'm not trying to break their tails. But they need to smarten up about what's going on in the world today."

So American soldiers dying is rationalized to being due to the drivers wanting to have more horsepower in their engines? Coming from a family heavily in the military, if I ever see this man face-to-face, I'll deck him. He's using the deaths of others to rationalize why he should be making money and not someone else.

http://gordonkirby.com/categories/co..._is_no245.html

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If it was the IRL's decision it was the wrong one. Of course costs need to be kept down but motorsport is about techonolgy evolving and pushing the barriers, not letting the technology stagnate, which is what happened and why there was a call for a new chassis/engine.

Racing is not about technology, it's about racing. I know this is sacreligious to you as a person from England but I'm sorry, technology is only used in order to go faster, no one does technology for technology's sake (see the F1 teams' uproar about KERS).

If racing was a purely technological enterprise, the biggest game in auto racing would be sportscar racing and Le Mans since it's an open system, not Formula One where constructors and engine manufacturers are curtailed on what they can do (there's an engine freeze for a few years for example). Yet sportscar racing in general is struggling mightily, if you go to the sportscar forum on this site you can read about it.

What Indycar the past 20 years represents is a platform where the technology required to compete at the top level outstripped the resources of the people wishing to compete. So they first turned to ride buyers, then the marginal participants - teams, drivers lacking funds, engine builders, and constructors - all dropped out, no one new came in because it didn't make business sense, and then all your options drop down to one. It happened to ChampCar in 2003 and it happened to Indycar in 2006. Having high technology and multiple car and engine builders are two completely contradictory aims. If you want to have multiple participants the costs to compete have to be low enough for it to make sense for people to make a car that won't be supplied to the whole field - more people can build a car that costs $200k than can build a car that costs $800k, that's economics 101. And supply and demand tells us that when there is low supply, costs go up.

It works for F1 because they have a global fanbase, and even there manufacturers have pulled out left and right the past few years because of the costs not matching the return. Indycar only has North America in all honesty (before anyone says "I'm in England and I watch races", if you only watch races on TV, you and the TV channel you watched on only threw in pennies to watch, the sport made no money off you, and the sport has to make money to support everything they pay for). And in North America, it's not #1, it's #2 by a good margin. So the competition costs have to match the money brought in. If you want to have high technology, it's going to be one car, one engine, because that's the only way to reduce costs so that they somewhat make sense. If you want to have multiple builders, the technology has to be lower.

[JagtechOhio]

Flyin
Ryan

Partel's comments read like he subscribes to the dog-ring school of journalism. Much scooping required.

Agreed about racing trumping technology, and wider access required for good racing.

The only points I would add:

The first, which is one of the few where I agree with Bernard, is that the big picture problem is on the revenue side and not the cost containment side.

The second is that people have to keep in mind U.S. domestic sponsorship is what is lacking the most, and their customers are the #1 target audience. As important as international fans, events and corporate partners are, the IndyCar Series does not survive without home cooking and lots more folks to dig in.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Racing is not about technology, it's about racing. I know this is sacreligious to you as a person from England but I'm sorry, technology is only used in order to go faster, no one does technology for technology's sake (see the F1 teams' uproar about KERS).

If racing was a purely technological enterprise, the biggest game in auto racing would be sportscar racing and Le Mans since it's an open system, not Formula One where constructors and engine manufacturers are curtailed on what they can do (there's an engine freeze for a few years for example). Yet sportscar racing in general is struggling mightily, if you go to the sportscar forum on this site you can read about it..

Of course racing is about racing; that's what started it all off in the first place. However, technology is very much part of racing and has been used to gain the advantage over your oponent. That's why over the years there have been tehnological changes, e.g. chassis, engines, tyres, gearboxes, suspension and aerodynamics.

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

It works for F1 because they have a global fanbase, and even there manufacturers have pulled out left and right the past few years because of the costs not matching the return. Indycar only has North America in all honesty (before anyone says "I'm in England and I watch races", if you only watch races on TV, you and the TV channel you watched on only threw in pennies to watch, the sport made no money off you, and the sport has to make money to support everything they pay for). And in North America, it's not #1, it's #2 by a good margin. So the competition costs have to match the money brought in. If you want to have high technology, it's going to be one car, one engine, because that's the only way to reduce costs so that they somewhat make sense. If you want to have multiple builders, the technology has to be lower.

F1's fan base didn't happen overnight but from its outset it had an international base, from which it gradually capitalised on and expanded. CART was very similar, look how it expaned from ruoghly 15 races ac season to 20, with many a number of races outside of North America.

As for only watching on TV, that for some people is the only option. Now whether the TV channel chooses to broadcast a program is obviously down to viewing figures and if whatever it is they are broadcasting doesn't generate those figures then they aren't going to buy it. So it's not the viewer's or the TV channel's fault that the sport, program, made no money, it's the product that failed to, in this case the sport or program. It's basic marketing.

[JagtechOhio]

"..it's the product that failed.."

Cha-ching.

Boring product at venues not suited for the perfomance of the cars.
Failure to enact specification changes to improve the product.
Failure to promote the product and attract new audiences.
Strict limitations on variety which insures identical cars, predictable performance levels and no innovation.

It's hard to see where a marketable product is being developed within the current framework, and how any recent efforts have delivered a bit of change.

Inviting the change in equipment that IndyCar seeks, in the restrictive manner they have elected to do it, will not work. Forcing an engine or aero kit manufacturer to supply the entire field achieves nothing more than changing to a new spec.

Showing up at the track to race what you have built within the specs, as bjohn implies, makes technology a welcomed and needed element. It doesn't have to be cutting edge high-tech, or a manufacturer-backed development program, and I think that's where Ryan is coming from.

That's why I thought the invitation to independent engine builders would work. Why relaxing aerodynamic restrictions would also bring variety in performance and aesthetics.

Doesn't that mean the wealthy teams will have more room to establish advantages? Yes, but that's what we have now, even with a full spec series of identical cars. So the little guy has NO shot now.

In the future,the little guy will be in a worse position. He can do R&D to find a competitive advantage, but loses the value when his configuration is approved and must be shared with everyone.

The big guys will race with the best engine and the best aero kit that is approved. The little guys will be financially limited to the choices they made, and keep losing ground.

That still makes it a spending battle that can be contested by only a few. The little guy has no choice, and cannot even continue running his old equipment if that's all he could afford.

The best case scenario of the new formula is that there is a choice of several engines and several body kits. Wealthy teams will migrate to the best of both, the rest will be stuck with what they bought, and the inferior options will be put on the shelf.

There is no incentive to invest, unless you can commit to an R&D program that will establish superiority. You get all of the market share, or lose any of it you may have initially been able to attract.

The product could change if the teams were allowed to change it.

Look at the example provided by Mr. Pink:

Say Dale Coyne buys one of the Olsberg engines, stuffs it in an old Dallara, cuts off the airbox, and enters Alex Lloyd at Sonoma.

He's got lower drag, better fuel consuption rate, and a wider torque band (variable valve timing) to exploit. Lighter weight too, unless the Series decides to penalize him.

So Lloyd smokes the Andretti cars, and beats Castroneves (since he is a better driver). Maybe P4 is the best he can do. Better product? David vs. Goliath? Buzz about what those guys are running under there? Would Ford want their name on the car?

Let the big guys wonder, Coyne can keep his advantage until everybody else finds their own. That's racin'.

Racing is about racing to all of us, so it doesn't seem too complex.

To the IRL, it's impossible to figure out. To them, racing is about money. That leaves all the little guys...aero kit makers, engine builders, team owners, and fans who care about good product...that leaves all of us out of the picture.

[climb]

Quote:
"I think they've made a tremendous blunder by saying they've cut the costs by 45 percent," Partel commented. "Any sponsor is going to say that if the costs are that much cheaper then they're going to cut their sponsorship budget by an equal amount. That's something Bernie Ecclestone would never have done. He understands that you've got to push the value up, not decrease it."

What a poor reasoning!

It just reverses reality; sponsors made the first move, cutting their marketing investments due to the crisis; then motorsport had to adapt, not vice versa!

[Mr Pink]

Lotus seems to like the idea with self-developed aerokits.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85623

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mr Pink

Lotus seems to like the idea with self-developed aerokits.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85623

I wonder if there will be some sort of 'merger' with KV and Lotus, with the potential to compete with the Ganassi and Penske?

You would have Autosport would have got their history right; Lotus winning Indy in 1965 and 66.

[JagtechOhio]

When Sato and Lotus came on board with KV, it was announced that Lotus would be running a two car team. Any increase in their participation is welcomed news.

[mountainstar]

Well now that some time has passed, for as great as the new 2012 rules are supposed to be and how it will be this new era of motorsport history, I haven't heard a peep from drivers and especially team owners remarking on how wonderfully fantastic this all is.

Interesting that silence.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Well now that some time has passed, for as great as the new 2012 rules are supposed to be and how it will be this new era of motorsport history, I haven't heard a peep from drivers and especially team owners remarking on how wonderfully fantastic this all is.

Interesting that silence.

Everything I'm hearing on the streets here indicates that teams are waiting to see what the "real" costs will be when spares have to be calculated in, upgrades come along in subsequent seasons, etc...

It's kinda like the "Introductory Price" scenario, but to keep up with the competition, you need this new chit or bit, plus your spares, and the teams get hit with price markups on those individual chits, bits and spares to make up for the inexpensive price of the initial package.

The kit builders are going to have to make their $$$ somehow, and it is unlikely that they'll make any money selling kits for a max of $70,000 each.

That's why they aren't saying anything right now...

[JagtechOhio]

And if that's the reason for the silence, then they are not too smart.

In round numbers, it's $1M of additional investment for a primary, T car, and spares package for a one car team.

In round numbers, that's about the same amount that a one car team will lose on the value of their existing equipment. No engines, no market, no use.

The should be out pressing the flesh, not waiting to crunch the numbers.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

And if that's the reason for the silence, then they are not too smart.

In round numbers, it's $1M of additional investment for a primary, T car, and spares package for a one car team.

In round numbers, that's about the same amount that a one car team will lose on the value of their existing equipment. No engines, no market, no use.

The should be out pressing the flesh, not waiting to crunch the numbers.

As they are out there pressing the flesh and wooing sponsors, surely they are going to need some provisional figures?

[marcostraz]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Well now that some time has passed, for as great as the new 2012 rules are supposed to be and how it will be this new era of motorsport history, I haven't heard a peep from drivers and especially team owners remarking on how wonderfully fantastic this all is.

Interesting that silence.

Here there is reaction from Briscoe, Castroneves, Conway, Dixon, Hildebrand, Matos, Lloyd, Meira, Mutoh, Power, Scheckter, Viso, Wilson:

http://indycar.com/tech/content/38564/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by marcostraz

Here there is reaction from Briscoe, Castroneves, Conway, Dixon, Hildebrand, Matos, Lloyd, Meira, Mutoh, Power, Scheckter, Viso, Wilson:

http://indycar.com/tech/content/38564/

I wouldn't expect any negative comments at this stage, though the proof of the pudding wil be in the eating. It will be interesting to see what the chassis and various aero packets produce.

[JagtechOhio]

Take your 2009 operating budget.

Presumably, you didn't buy a new chassis: few teams did.

If you did, subtract it.

Subtract 50% of the cost of the spares budget for the season.

Subtract $300K for the projected savings on the annual engine lease cost.

Add $1M for two chassis and a spares package.

That gets you within 10% accuracy of a total budget for 2012.

What you have to keep in mind is the size of the budgets we are talking about. A $70K body kit isn't going to amount to 2% of the total. Based on the AA budget for one car, it would be closer to 1%.

[JagtechOhio]

Apologies to the regular members here, as the article linked below is primarily based on the eight months of dicussion we have shared on this thread.

Thanks in no small part to Mr. Pink, there probably isn't a group of people anywhere who know more about existing engines that would make good candidates for Indycar racing. Hava a look if you wish, and stay parallel, my friend. There is more than one line to follow.

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

[Mr Pink]

Good article Jag! Sums it up pretty good. I think credit shouldn't go so much to me as to Andreas Eriksson (head of MSE) for the quick reply.

[JagtechOhio]

Thanks, Mr. Pink!

I have been very hard on this for a very long time.
Many good people made good contributions to this thread.

In searching for advice and assistance from others, I can count on one hand the number of people who delivered. You are on the short list.

[JagtechOhio]

From the "Trackside" radio broadcast tonight:

Host Kevin Lee: "What about Dallara's meeting with car owners?"

Reporter Curt Cavin: "Huh (chuckle), from the car owners' perspective, as some said, it was a joke. They didn't get the kind of answers that they wanted, and they need a lot more answers to be satisfied."

So there was a meeting at Mid Ohio. Still nothing public from any of the owners, one month after the chassis strategy announcement.

What everybody else says really doesn't matter, does it?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

From the "Trackside" radio broadcast tonight:

Host Kevin Lee: "What about Dallara's meeting with car owners?"

Reporter Curt Cavin: "Huh (chuckle), from the car owners' perspective, as some said, it was a joke. They didn't get the kind of answers that they wanted, and they need a lot more answers to be satisfied."

So there was a meeting at Mid Ohio. Still nothing public from any of the owners, one month after the chassis strategy announcement.

What everybody else says really doesn't matter, does it?

The silence speaks volumes I believe and for what was touted as such an epic, game changing announcement, you'd figure right from the get go, all the owners would have put out various soundbites of platitudes and at a minimum cheering quite loudly.

But there was none of that excitement or hoorahs at all.

And as I understood it, dallara never even really had much of a fixed design at all. Mostly what was important to the irl was cash flow into various pockets. That satisfied, I don't really think they give a damn what the car is or what it looks like or even what it does.

[JagtechOhio]

It's pretty intriguing right now, what is really going on. None of us on the outside knows crap.

[Tim Northcutt]

There was a note about this in last Monday's "pit Pass" in the Star.

Larry Curry called the meeting a joke, because Dallara can't tell them jack at this point what the "real" costs of racing this new chassis will be in terms of spares, etc., and Tim Cindric said that he couldn't possibly comment on anything until IndyCar actually comes up with a set of concrete rules and regs.

Cavin did lead off that item by saying that the team leaders were very unhappy with the meeting and it did not go well at all because there were no answers to the obvious questions that eams have about this new chassis...