Indycar News & Rumors.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't find the NASCAR cars troubling on the eye at all, they just look like NASCARs.

I guess its personal opinion - the same as with the Indycars but the current & previous spec of NASCAR was honking.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

When I watch a race I feel as if something is missing and I personally put that down to the spec aspect of series. Whether aero-kits are the answer to raising IndyCar's profile remains to be seen but they aren't gong to be introduced until 2015 and IndyCar is going to have to survive the 2014 series, which in its current state does not look good, especially as title sponsor Izod wants out.

Something missing? I agree non spec racing is preferred however during a race the spec characteristics aid the racing rather than detract from it - hence the racing in 2012 & 2013. The other option is people are trying to find something wrong when watching rather than just enjoying a race.

Aero kits nor different chassis arent going to raise the profile of Indycar - despite what some people bang on about here. This needs addressing as discussed but the series needs to build stars to build fans to build interest to build sponsorships etc.

Arh the old - will Indycar survive this year chat. Good to see the same record is on play by some members. IZOD have a contract so unless they pay up and depart or a replaced Indycar is no worse off short term (despite the obvious long term replacement concerns)

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I guess its personal opinion - the same as with the Indycars but the current & previous spec of NASCAR was honking.

I quite like the look of the Ford Fusion, it looks like it's built for purpose.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Something missing? I agree non spec racing is preferred however during a race the spec characteristics aid the racing rather than detract from it - hence the racing in 2012 & 2013. The other option is people are trying to find something wrong when watching rather than just enjoying a race.

Aero kits nor different chassis arent going to raise the profile of Indycar - despite what some people bang on about here. This needs addressing as discussed but the series needs to build stars to build fans to build interest to build sponsorships etc.

Arh the old - will Indycar survive this year chat. Good to see the same record is on play by some members. IZOD have a contract so unless they pay up and depart or a replaced Indycar is no worse off short term (despite the obvious long term replacement concerns)

I think you'll find what's aided the racing is the DW12 is ground effect rather than flat bottomed, the result is no more of that awful pack racing. Personally I find nothing wrong with the racing in itself and but I do admit I find the esthetics of the DW12 a turn off, compared with a Lola, Reynard or Swift and that detracts from my full enjoyment. Also from an engineering point of view, it's not as well designed and I enjoy immensely the engineering aspect of motorsport.

At this juncture no one knows if aero-kits or different chassis are going to definitely raise the profile or not. All we have to go on is history, where multiple chassis/engines helped produce racing that rivaled F1 and then there's the likes of Derrick Walker who believe a move from spec racing, as outlined in his initiative, will make the difference.

The problem with star drivers is how do you create star drivers and how do you attract future star drivers when the profile of the series is so low? The same old, will IndyCar survive chat, will continue to raise it's head because of dwindling revenue due to falling TV and track attendance.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Also from an engineering point of view, it's not as well designed and I enjoy immensely the engineering aspect of motorsport.

I feel once again, that comment of not being as well engineered is an extreme personal opinion rather than fact which impacts on the track or tv viewer.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

At this juncture no one knows if aero-kits or different chassis are going to definitely raise the profile or not.

An aero kit is not going to flick the switch in fans minds to start attending or viewing races on tv. Its needed for the development and evolution of the series but isnt a quick fix.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

dwindling revenue due to falling TV and track attendance.

Dwindling revenue & track attendance? Previous posts about this proved a lack of facts or sources to support these comments. Has anything changed?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I feel once again, that comment of not being as well engineered is an extreme personal opinion rather than fact which impacts on the track or tv viewer.

The lap and pole times compared with 1999, for example, suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

An aero kit is not going to flick the switch in fans minds to start attending or viewing races on tv. Its needed for the development and evolution of the series but isnt a quick fix.

No it's not going to be a quick fix and this was outlined in Derrick Warwick's Initiative.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Dwindling revenue & track attendance? Previous posts about this proved a lack of facts or sources to support these comments. Has anything changed?

Not so, read the article in HJJ's post #1287.

[D.R.T.]

1999 were different regulations so I am not sure how relevant that comparison is?

The link wouldnt open (is a subscription needed?) but I am assuming you are saying that this confirmed reduced crowd numbers across all events in 2013 and down revenue (even though sponsorship, television contracts) are consistent from 2012 to 2013?

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

The link wouldnt open

Just trying to save some bandwidth, here's the story.

07/15/13 IndyCar racing scratching to line up sponsors to replace Izod The IndyCar Series’ quest to find a presenting sponsor that could eventually replace Izod as title sponsor—a task series officials earlier this year called their top sales priority—has taken a blow.
Greg Gruning, IndyCar’s executive vice president of corporate sales and the series’ point man in brokering big sponsorship deals, resigned in late June. Gruning could not be reached for comment.

Izod’s high-profile title sponsorship deal expires following the 2014 season, but many motorsports industry insiders expect the clothing maker will try to end the agreement early.

Some of the talks that began last year to bring in a new presenting series sponsor, along with some new ones, were heating up this summer when Gruning exited, sources close to the series said. Now, time may be running short to ink a deal.

“Right now is the peak of the selling season, so it’s not too late by any means. But they need to be on it pretty hard,” said Zak Brown, CEO of Just Marketing International, a Zionsville-based motorsports marketing firm that represents some of the biggest sponsors in NASCAR, Formula One and IndyCar. “I’d say they’d have to get a deal done within the next 90 days to have them in place for next season.”

Brown is confident Mark Miles, CEO of IndyCar Series and Indianapolis Motor Speedway parent Hulman & Co., will ease the transition of the post-Gruning era.

“I’m sure Mark has a plan to replace, absorb or reassign those responsibilities so it shouldn’t hamper sales efforts,” Brown said.

Others are less certain.

“The task certainly becomes more difficult with the exit of Greg Gruning,” said Ken Ungar, the former Indianapolis Motor Speedway chief of staff and IndyCar Series senior vice president before forming his own sports marketing consultancy, US Sports Advisors, in 2006.

“Greg is well-thought-of in this industry,” Ungar added. “He’ll be missed.”

Miles said Gruning’s departure was not part of his ongoing staff reorganization.

Izod in 2009 signed a six-year, $60 million title sponsorship deal, but a management change at Izod parent Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. changed things.

In 2012, Michael Shaffer replaced IndyCar supporter Allen Sirkin as chief operating officer at PVH, and ordered a pullback in promotions related to the title sponsorship.

Last year, PVH pulled the plug on most of its IndyCar Series-related TV ads and other promotions, including its Indy 500 kick-off party Izod hosted with GQ magazine in 2010 and Spin magazine in 2011.

This year, the company dropped the majority of its remaining Izod IndyCar-related promotions—which had totaled $5 million annually in series marketing during the first three years of the deal.

While motorsports insiders said Izod has continued to pay the IndyCar Series $6 million annually, they are now refusing to promote the series. Izod, sources said, also has asked to have the deal terminated before it ends following the 2014 season. PVH officials did not return a call seeking comment.

While IndyCar officials don’t appear to be obligated to find an early replacement for Izod, Gruning said before he exited that a title sponsor’s willingness to spend on promoting the series is as important as the deal’s cash value.

“He left to pursue other professional opportunities,” Miles said

From the IBJ link

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

1999 were different regulations so I am not sure how relevant that comparison is?

Either way those cars, were far better designed than the current one.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

The link wouldnt open (is a subscription needed?) but I am assuming you are saying that this confirmed reduced crowd numbers across all events in 2013 and down revenue (even though sponsorship, television contracts) are consistent from 2012 to 2013?

I went back to that post and couldn't open the link either. However, at the time I could and quoted a section in my post #1289, which pertained to TV viewing figures and the lack of sponsors.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Either way those cars, were far better designed than the current one.

In your opinion - as there is nothing factual presented so far to validate this.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I went back to that post and couldn't open the link either. However, at the time I could and quoted a section in my post #1289, which pertained to TV viewing figures and the lack of sponsors.

Thanks to HJJ for posting the article.

Tv viewing absolutely however your post includes identifying falling revenue due to falling track attendances.

Neither of the those two points were in the article that was sighted to support your post?

[DS"]

I noticed a massive breakdown from 2011 to 2012. Does Las Vegas have something to do with that? Because I can't imagine that the new car would have been that much of a turn-off.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

In your opinion - as there is nothing factual presented so far to validate this.

Not so and it's not my opinion, you might want to read this article.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-2012-cars-design-development-issues/

Dallara make good spec cars for the lower open wheel formulae and pretty much dominate that market but when it comes to highly specialised open wheel cars like F1 and IndyCar they have come up short as outlined by Will Phillips, IndyCar’s Vice President of Technology. He says, “They’ve out-smarted themselves. Look at the aerodynamics on the Formula One car they delivered for HRT. That thing was barely suitable for that series, and if you look at the [DW12], they’ve also come up woefully short.”

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Thanks to HJJ for posting the article.

Tv viewing absolutely however your post includes identifying falling revenue due to falling track attendances.

Neither of the those two points were in the article that was sighted to support your post?

In my post #1302, I actually said "dwindling revenue due to falling TV and track attendance.", not dwindling revenue & track attendance, which you put in your post #1303.

In the article 'IndyCar racing to line up sponsors to replace Izod', which HJJ posted, there was was a whole section about TV figures and sponsorship, some of which I quoted in my post #1289.

With regards to dwindling track attendance and lack of revenue, Edmonton is an excellent example; it's no longer on the calendar. This article from Sports Illustrated, summarises the problem.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/racing/09/21/edmonton-indycar-folds.ap/index.html

[Mystery]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The problem with star drivers is how do you create star drivers and how do you attract future star drivers when the profile of the series is so low? The same old, will IndyCar survive chat, will continue to raise it's head because of dwindling revenue due to falling TV and track attendance.

Could start by not persevering with sub-standard drivers just because they're American or have a historically relevant surname. Or hold up your hands and say this is the US National racing series and stop thinking about going international.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Saw Turbo, left 3/4 of the way to sneak into the Conjuring.

Indycar CEO depiction is funny though, and in shocking news the Villian is French, never heard that before.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Not so and it's not my opinion, you might want to read this article.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-2012-cars-design-development-issues/

Dallara make good spec cars for the lower open wheel formulae and pretty much dominate that market but when it comes to highly specialised open wheel cars like F1 and IndyCar they have come up short as outlined by Will Phillips, IndyCar’s Vice President of Technology. He says, “They’ve out-smarted themselves. Look at the aerodynamics on the Formula One car they delivered for HRT. That thing was barely suitable for that series, and if you look at the [DW12], they’ve also come up woefully short.”

Interesting comments from Phillips. The link seems to direct back to 10/10ths but would be keen to read the article if still available.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In my post #1302, I actually said "dwindling revenue due to falling TV and track attendance.", not dwindling revenue & track attendance, which you put in your post #1303.

In the article 'IndyCar racing to line up sponsors to replace Izod', which HJJ posted, there was was a whole section about TV figures and sponsorship, some of which I quoted in my post #1289.

No worries however there is no support for this statement in 2013 (so far) that has been provided. The TV contract is set so that currently has no effect for revenue and nor does the conjecture around IZOD.

Edmondton is an example however this doesnt support any comments about track attendance for 2013 which you continue to make, without any support to add substance to the posts.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Mystery

Could start by not persevering with sub-standard drivers just because they're American or have a historically relevant surname. Or hold up your hands and say this is the US National racing series and stop thinking about going international.

The top Indycar drivers are top drivers and any series that is a 'national' series in America has an international stature given the sheer scale of North America.

[Mystery]

Bourdais's F1 career. Mike Andretti's. Cough, cough ;-)

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Mystery

Bourdais's F1 career. Mike Andretti's. Cough, cough ;-)

Yes and...? Those are/were two world class drivers.

[rwintle]

Originally Posted by Mystery

Bourdais's F1 career. Mike Andretti's. Cough, cough ;-)

Can we please not perpetuate the myth that drivers who didn't succeed in Formula 1 aren't good drivers? Allan McNish. Cough, cough.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Interesting comments from Phillips. The link seems to direct back to 10/10ths but would be keen to read the article if still available.

Strange, this should work. http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-2012-cars-design-development-issues/

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

No worries however there is no support for this statement in 2013 (so far) that has been provided. The TV contract is set so that currently has no effect for revenue and nor does the conjecture around IZOD.

What do you mean no support for this statement? I suggest you read the last two paragraphs, which I quoted from that article. At risk of repeating myself, here they are, again.

"Nine of the first 10 IndyCar Series races this year scored a rating below 1.0, according to Nielsen, with the Indianapolis 500 being the lone exception. But the 11th race this year—at Pocono—showed promise, scoring a 1.1 overnight rating. Each rating point means 1 million households nationally are tuned in."

“The series has to get its ratings consistently above a 1.0,” Brown said. “That’s what sponsors are looking for at the minimum.” Basically, low ratings = no sponsors = no revenue.

What conjecture about Izod?

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Edmondton is an example however this doesnt support any comments about track attendance for 2013 which you continue to make, without any support to add substance to the posts.

In my post #1302, about TV and track attendance, I would like to know exactly where I mention 2013? This is an assumption you've incorrectly made. My comment was about the general state of IndyCar regarding TV audiences and track attendance; I again refer you to post #1302. As it is, neither IndyCar nor the tracks release official track attendance figures, however I've e-mailed Bryce Miller about obtaining track attendance figures, who wrote this article on this season's Iowa Corn Indy 250,

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...nclick_check=1

In it he says, "These days, Iowa Speedway declines to release attendance numbers, but some quick math on the half-full permanent grandstand (which holds 30,000) and other viewing areas meant 22,000 seemed a fair guess. It’s not the days when 40,000 ringed around the speedway fence in the honeymoon of the event that started in 2007 — but that’s true virtually everywhere."

[andy_b]

actually, I don't think Will did (or would have ever) said that. Read the paragraphs again,

“....But not everyone in the paddock believes the companies involved with providing the gearbox and its internals should take the blame for the DW12’s handling dilemma.

“I think the CFD model [Dallara’s] done is a bit too rudimentary, and it has bitten them in the end,” said one prominent IndyCar engineer with extensive CFD experience, who, along with another current IndyCar race engineer, voiced the same concern.

“They’ve out-smarted themselves. Look at the aerodynamics on the Formula One car they delivered for HRT. That thing was barely suitable for that series, and if you look at the [DW12], they’ve also come up woefully short. You can’t dabble in these things. I’ll just put it this way: every rudimentary Indy car CFD model I’ve seen has said the rear of the car needs more weight bias than it actually requires. When you see that data returned, it should be a prompt to spend more time on [improving] your model, not to go off and start making a car based off that weight distribution figure. I’ll bet you [taking] a shortcut on the model has set this entire chain of problems in motion.”

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by andy_b

actually, I don't think Will did (or would have ever) said that. Read the paragraphs again,

I have. The first paragraph that's quoted is in the section Weight & Weight Distribution, which is attributed to Will Phillips. It says, “Dallara did not go out to put [the weight distribution figures] where it is now,” said Phillips.

Looking at the context of the subsequent paragraphs, which are also quoted, it would seem they are also attributed to Phillips. The article doesn't say those paragraphs are attributed to anyone else.

[andy_b]

I have now confirmed, the paragraphs I quoted in my post, above, were from an Indycar race engineer, not Will.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by andy_b

I have now confirmed, the paragraphs I quoted in my post, above, were from an Indycar race engineer, not Will.

My mistake. Who was the engineer?

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What do you mean no support for this statement? I suggest you read the last two paragraphs, which I quoted from that article. At risk of repeating myself, here they are, again.

"Nine of the first 10 IndyCar Series races this year scored a rating below 1.0, according to Nielsen, with the Indianapolis 500 being the lone exception. But the 11th race this year—at Pocono—showed promise, scoring a 1.1 overnight rating. Each rating point means 1 million households nationally are tuned in."

“The series has to get its ratings consistently above a 1.0,” Brown said. “That’s what sponsors are looking for at the minimum.” Basically, low ratings = no sponsors = no revenue.

What conjecture about Izod?

Revenue for 2013 isnt decreasing. Future potential revenue based off sponsors could decrease for 2014 and beyond but this isnt for 2013 as discussed.

Conjecture about IZOD trying to pull out of its contract early doesnt effect current revenue.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In my post #1302, about TV and track attendance, I would like to know exactly where I mention 2013? This is an assumption you've incorrectly made. My comment was about the general state of IndyCar regarding TV audiences and track attendance; I again refer you to post #1302. As it is, neither IndyCar nor the tracks release official track attendance figures, however I've e-mailed Bryce Miller about obtaining track attendance figures, who wrote this article on this season's Iowa Corn Indy 250

In 1302 you havent specifically written 2013, however in all your "themed" posts in this thread and other threads the generic comment about decreasing tv figures and attendences has been thrown about.

As you say, without proper official attendences being released its hard to comment. While you sight some quick maths around Iowa, other people have commented about Toronto being up this year, Milwaukee, Pocono as a new event.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Revenue for 2013 isnt decreasing. Future potential revenue based off sponsors could decrease for 2014 and beyond but this isnt for 2013 as discussed.

As I said before, my comment about revenue never mentioned 2013, it was a comment about revenue in general. If revenue has increased in 2013, show me the evidence to support that.

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Conjecture about IZOD trying to pull out of its contract early doesnt effect current revenue.

The article 07/15/13 IndyCar racing scratching to line up sponsors to replace Izod, states, "While motorsports insiders said Izod has continued to pay the IndyCar Series $6 million annually, they are now refusing to promote the series. Izod, sources said, also has asked to have the deal terminated before it ends following the 2014 season. PVH officials did not return a call seeking comment."

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

In 1302 you havent specifically written 2013, however in all your "themed" posts in this thread and other threads the generic comment about decreasing tv figures and attendences has been thrown about.

TV ratings are down. What does this graph show?



TV ratings were also the lowest ever for the 500 itself, this year.

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/...ting-ever.html

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

As you say, without proper official attendences being released its hard to comment. While you sight some quick maths around Iowa, other people have commented about Toronto being up this year, Milwaukee, Pocono as a new event.

Without official figures here's some more quick math. TMS used to draw between 100-80k for a race up to about 2010. There were maybe 40,000 at this years race.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As I said before, my comment about revenue never mentioned 2013, it was a comment about revenue in general. If revenue has increased in 2013, show me the evidence to support that.



The article 07/15/13 IndyCar racing scratching to line up sponsors to replace Izod, states, "While motorsports insiders said Izod has continued to pay the IndyCar Series $6 million annually, they are now refusing to promote the series. Izod, sources said, also has asked to have the deal terminated before it ends following the 2014 season. PVH officials did not return a call seeking comment."



TV ratings are down. What does this graph show?



TV ratings were also the lowest ever for the 500 itself, this year.

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/...ting-ever.html



Without official figures here's some more quick math. TMS used to draw between 100-80k for a race up to about 2010. There were maybe 40,000 at this years race.

Mate I am not saying revenue is up. What I am saying is what you are putting on the table isnt showing decreasing revenue in 2013 with set tv and sponsorship contracts in place which dont fluctuate year to year.

At the end of these contracts absolutely this effects future revenue but not current revenue.

Once again, posting track attendences with numbers based off nothing more than your observations isnt great practice for a forum moderator.