Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 301

Thread: IndyCar falls short in bid to lure third engine manufacturer

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Boweimer View Post
    Stop spec racing & they will come! It's up to the Indycar Brass
    And the teams will do this with what money?


    Quote Originally Posted by BADGER View Post
    This is such a false narrative. First, the dollar amount seems high, and I doubt it exceeded the money spent on engines. If money spent on aero showed no return, then the same can be said on the engine competition. Might as well go spec engines since engine competition doesn't move the needle.
    ....
    Instead of bringing lots of talented engineering talent into the series to work on things like aero kits, those engineers will work in other series where spec isn't the answer to every question.
    Outside of LMP1 and F1 who is really non-spec? Nobody else has the money for their series racing teams to not be spec to a large degree.


    Quote Originally Posted by BADGER View Post
    Because single make formula racing has shown to be successful time and time again.
    Ok, but with what money - big tobacco is gone. I guess Andretti, Ginassi and Penske could trim to 2 car teams to cover the additional expense - but then most fans want a 20+ car grid as well.

    And it's not like the series had any real "innovation" in the CART heydays either.


    Quote Originally Posted by lddk24fan View Post
    The sooner they get their TV stuff ironed out the better chance they'll have of finishing these deals.
    A decent TV deal would help a lot, and should be where their focus is on for the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by RHRfan#1 View Post
    the fact that people think that the old rule of "win on sunday, sell on Monday" still applies is a joke. ...
    Truth. If that was true, GT racing would be the most popular type of racing on the planet.


    .

  2. #152
    Insider Jakester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    22,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes350 View Post
    Truth. If that was true, GT racing would be the most popular type of racing on the planet.
    No, it would just mean that GT racing fans would be the most likely to buy based on who's winning races.

    And that may be the case. Note the car corrals at IMSA events and the track drive arounds...
    BAN SHREDDED CHEESE! MAKE AMERICA GRATE AGAIN!

  3. #153
    Registered Unser atrackforumfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Blog Entries
    1
    Outside of LMP1 and F1 who is really non-spec? Nobody else has the money for their series racing teams to not be spec to a large degree.
    High-end GT racing is mostly not spec. In FIA GTE and the various GT3 events (except one-make), manufacturers are welcome to homologate almost anything, although it will be very closely regulated to equalize performance.
    Racing ain't much, but workin's nothing. Richard Tharp

    Lying was a no-brainer for me. Robin Miller

    "I thought they booed [Danica] because she was being a complete jerk, but then they applauded for A.J. Foyt. Now I'm just confused."

    The real world sucks. Ed McCullough

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by atrackforumfan View Post
    High-end GT racing is mostly not spec. In FIA GTE and the various GT3 events (except one-make), manufacturers are welcome to homologate almost anything, although it will be very closely regulated to equalize performance.
    I chalk all that up to technical semantics.

    Between BOP and homologation vs. "spec" - six of one, half a dozen of the other...

    Manufacturers get into it precisely because of BoP. All the cars are "made" to perform the same.

    It's like the guys on the Nascar forum telling me that they are not a spec series - and then list all the stuff the teams do that some how makes the cars wildly different.

    Technically, Indycar isn't spec either because they can spend crazy money on Dampers.

    But everyone calls it a spec series, and no one really contradicts the label because the difference really isn't worth caring about.


    .

  5. #155
    There is no substitute. Spike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Driving the point home
    Posts
    25,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes350 View Post
    But everyone calls it a spec series...
    Yep, because that's what it is.
    "I would really like to go to NASCAR. I really enjoy NASCAR and if I could be there in a couple of years that's where I'd want to be." - Jeff Gordon (after testing a Formula Super Vee)

  6. #156
    Registered Unser atrackforumfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Blog Entries
    1
    Your original point is that spec racing is a result of everyone being broke. However, manufacturers spend lots of money on those GT cars, and so do a lot of enthusiast owner/drivers. They aren't equalized to keep them cheap. Nor is Nascar equalized to keep it cheap. In both cases, manufacturers spend lots of money to gain an advantage that will win the next race, even though that advantage probably will be nullified in a race or two. The cars are continually reequalized because keeping the racing close is good for everyone's business, not to minimize the cost.

    Among top level series, Indycar is uniquely a minimum-cost spec because half the field is having a hard time finding enough money to pay the crew and fill the hauler to make the next race. By comparison to Indycar owners, I would predict that most high-level GT racers would agree that standardizing on a single generic body to save money might be the dumbest idea imaginable for their businesses.
    Last edited by atrackforumfan; 06-13-2017 at 09:13 PM.

  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by atrackforumfan View Post
    Your original point is that spec racing is a result of everyone being broke.
    Not a result of everyone being broke in Indycar - a reality of the small fanbase and ability to attract sponsorship for Indycar teams. And the resulting lack of funds to support different chassis makers competing with the teams for business.


    Quote Originally Posted by atrackforumfan View Post
    However, manufacturers spend lots of money on those GT cars, and so do a lot of enthusiast owner/drivers. They aren't equalized to keep them cheap. Nor is Nascar equalized to keep it cheap. In both cases, manufacturers spend lots of money to gain an advantage that will win the next race, even though that advantage probably will be nullified in a race or two. The cars are continually reequalized because keeping the racing close is good for everyone's business, not to minimize the cost.
    In motor racing "Lots of money" is a very relative term.

    GT racing and Nascar are absolutely equalized to keep them "cheap".

    "Cheap"= Racing competitively will cost vastly less than a more "open" formula, or less "restrictive" rulebook.

    The rules in Nascar absolutely written keep things cheap.

    Nascar 's heavy equalization - A super tight rulebook that heavily restricts just about everything. Does make things cheaper! It just happens that the Nascar teams spend "Lots of money" in the little areas they can because they see a performance advantage. And they are the biggest series in the US. with the most sponsor $$ to do so.

    Just like some Indycar teams still spend "Lots of money" on their damper programs...

    Doesn't change the fact that when you restrict/"equalize" the car rules to the degree that Nascar & GT racing do, it is vastly cheaper than having a more "open" formula.

    They can say it's all about close competition all they want - but cost control is a major part of both Nascar and GT racing rules-set.


    Quote Originally Posted by atrackforumfan View Post
    Among top level series, Indycar is uniquely a minimum-cost spec because half the field is having a hard time finding enough money to pay the crew and fill the hauler to make the next race. By comparison to Indycar owners, I would predict that most GT racers would agree that standardizing on a single generic body to save money might be the dumbest idea imaginable for their businesses.
    Apples to Oranges.

    "Lots" of money when talking about GT racing is very relative, because a two car full season GT team is many times cheaper to do than Indycar, or Nascar.

    GT racing is many times cheaper For manufacturers and independent teams, as they are able to leverage the economies of scale of major car manufacturing for a competitive chassis. Precisely because of the way GT rules are written.

    And due to BoP and Homologation anything you buy will be competitive. And all the "chassis and aero development" in the LMP1 and F1 sense, is not done by the independent racing teams themselves.

    In GT racing, tightly written homologation rules and strong BoP formulas do keep things "cheap". (A de-facto "spec".) That is absolutely intentional. GT racing has learned its lesson from the GT1 days with its more open rulebook.


    Formula racing (Indycar, Super Formula, hell I'll throw DTM in there...) is a different animal.

    Because even "spec" formula cars are just flat out more expensive.

    The Specialty manufactured carbon fibre chassis costs more.

    And then everything else from the brakes to the aero is designed for that specific chassis.

    Which costs more.

    Much more on a equivalent basis than anything in GT racing or Nascar.

    And Indycar has a fraction of the $$$ coming into the series and teams that Nascar does.

    So Indycar is "spec". And until the series can get back to being even close to current Nascar numbers for ratings, fans and $$$, any talk of opening up the rulebook is delusional.


    .

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes350 View Post

    So Indycar is "spec". And until the series can get back to being even close to current Nascar numbers for ratings, fans and $$$, any talk of opening up the rulebook is delusional.


    .
    You know when a plane is in a dive, it's not a good idea for the pilot to pull up on the stick, right?

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban1 View Post
    You know when a plane is in a dive, it's not a good idea for the pilot to pull up on the stick, right?

    Your clever retort went clear over my head.

    I don't know enough about aviation to understand the metaphor.

    I also had to look up exactly what "whinging" meant after I saw it used profusely on an F1 forum I visit.

    So there is that.

    .

  10. #160
    When a plane loses lift and is falling towards the ground, instinct is to pull up on the stick in order to "lift" the plane back into the air. That will result in a crash.

    The way to actually recover the plane is to do the one thing that most people think you should absolutely not do. That is to say, the pilot should point the plane down and increase speed, flying towards the ground as fast as possible, and then the plane will recover lift and start flying again.

    Just something to keep in mind when someone is so sure it "has to be this way" or "has to be that way".

  11. #161
    There is no substitute. Spike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Driving the point home
    Posts
    25,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban1 View Post
    When a plane is in a dive and heading towards the ground, instinct is to lift up on the stick in order to "lift" the plane back into the air. That will result in a crash.

    The way to actually recover the plane is to do what the average person would think would surely crash it into the ground. That is to say, if the pilot points the plane down and increases speed, flying towards the ground as fast as possible, the plane will recover lift and start flying again.
    There is so much wrong in all that I don't know where to begin.

  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Spike View Post
    There is so much wrong in all that I don't know where to begin.
    Please explain why you think pointing the nose down and increasing speed is not the way to recover a stall. I'd be happy to learn more. The FAA has several incident reports that state otherwise, most notably the crash report on AF flight 447.

    Anyway, not trying to derail the thread. Just making a simple point.

  13. #163
    There is no substitute. Spike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Driving the point home
    Posts
    25,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban1 View Post
    Please explain why you think pointing the nose down and increasing speed is not the way to recover a stall.
    You never mentioned the plane being in a stall. What you did say is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban1 View Post
    You know when a plane is in a dive, it's not a good idea for the pilot to pull up on the stick, right?
    Dive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban1 View Post
    When a plane is in a dive and heading towards the ground...
    If the aircraft is truly in a dive, then there is no need for the pilot to, "point the plane down..." It already is pointed down.

    By the way, I started flying at age 15.

  14. #164
    Insider Jakester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    22,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Esteban1 View Post
    Please explain why you think pointing the nose down and increasing speed is not the way to recover a stall. I'd be happy to learn more. The FAA has several incident reports that state otherwise, most notably the crash report on AF flight 447.

    Anyway, not trying to derail the thread. Just making a simple point.
    I think your 'simple point' misses that a 'dive' and a 'stall' are two very different things...requiring very different reactions.

    Dive: A dive may technically be described as "a steep descending flight path".While there is no specific definition for what degree of steepness transforms a downward trajectory into a dive, it is necessarily a rapid, nose-forward descent.

    Stall: a condition in aerodynamics and aviation wherein the angle of attack increases beyond a certain point such that lift begins to decrease.

  15. #165
    Insider Nigel Red5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On Chesapeake Bay
    Posts
    14,424
    Blog Entries
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes350 View Post
    I chalk all that up to technical semantics.

    Between BOP and homologation vs. "spec" - six of one, half a dozen of the other...

    Manufacturers get into it precisely because of BoP. All the cars are "made" to perform the same.

    It's like the guys on the Nascar forum telling me that they are not a spec series - and then list all the stuff the teams do that some how makes the cars wildly different.

    Technically, Indycar isn't spec either because they can spend crazy money on Dampers.

    But everyone calls it a spec series, and no one really contradicts the label because the difference really isn't worth caring about.


    .
    NASCAR teams are free to build their own chassis and run their own engine programs if they so choose. They have lists of approved suppliers and parts, but many of those parts also have choices. it is highly regulated, but it is not single supplier like most "SPEC" series.

  16. #166
    Insider Jakester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    22,007
    Quote Originally Posted by wes350
    In motor racing "Lots of money" is a very relative term.

    GT racing and Nascar are absolutely equalized to keep them "cheap".

    "Cheap"= Racing competitively will cost vastly less than a more "open" formula, or less "restrictive" rulebook.

    The rules in Nascar absolutely written keep things cheap.

    Nascar 's heavy equalization - A super tight rulebook that heavily restricts just about everything. Does make things cheaper! It just happens that the Nascar teams spend "Lots of money" in the little areas they can because they see a performance advantage. And they are the biggest series in the US. with the most sponsor $$ to do so.
    Cost controlled maybe....'cheap', no.

  17. #167
    Lamborghini

    Come on ICS - come on

  18. #168
    Insider mdkiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    The Moody Mile
    Posts
    18,968
    Blog Entries
    1
    At least this thread went off the flight plan rather than being derailed.
    "George Bignott's Sinmast Wildcat; delicately built, carefully prepared and boldly driven by Gordon Johncock." -- Keith Jackson

  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by mdkiel View Post
    At least this thread went off the flight plan rather than being derailed.
    You can't blame me this time.

  20. #170
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    4,368
    I hear that British Leyland is the next manufacturer that ICS is going after!
    World's biggest Ryan Hunter-Reay fan!

    When not discussing opinions, I try my best to only post facts, if I post something factually incorrect please correct me with a source (if possible)

  21. #171
    No doubt - maybe we can get MG and the hawaii super prox back on the table?

  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes350 View Post
    So Indycar is "spec". And until the series can get back to being even close to current Nascar numbers for ratings, fans and $$$, any talk of opening up the rulebook is delusional.


    .
    True under the current system. However, spec racing in IndyCar has done nothing but drive costs sky high for everyone.

    All of those stories about $1-$2M of damage to the cars at Texas last weekend point out just how expensive Indy style spec racing really is. If teams or secondary suppliers were allowed to build spares for Indy teams the costs might have been down in the several hundred thousand range. And if smaller teams were allowed to buy older equipment at market prices you would see a whole bunch of more teams showing up.

    Of course, on the spare parts front IMS/IndyCar gets a cut of every sale and takes fees for most "approved" parts on the Dallara spec cars. That's the real reason there are spec rules. It's allows IMS to have one more revenue stream. With a truly open rule book they would get nothing.

    And if engine rules were relaxed to where there were alternatives other than the current monopoly costs might drop as well. Plus there might be greater overall fan interest in the series if rules were opened up which would also attract more potential sponsors.

    I know none of this is going to happen but the premise that spec racing lowers costs is pretty much a myth. If true market forces were allowed in IndyCar people might be surprised at just how resourceful racing teams can be.

    And the on track product might also be a whole lot better and compel more people to watch the races. Texas was quite a show Saturday night but almost no one was watching according to this weeks ratings.


  23. #173
    Insider Nigel Red5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On Chesapeake Bay
    Posts
    14,424
    Blog Entries
    8
    it's not as much about lower cost, its known, controlled costs and more importantly balanced competition.

  24. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakester View Post
    I think your 'simple point' misses that a 'dive' and a 'stall' are two very different things...requiring very different reactions.
    Thank you. I did use 'stall' in the other post. I was just passing on a lesson someone had shared with me a long time ago, and didn't realize I used the words interchangeably.

    Although in response to the first reply I received, I would think a pilot would have understood what I was getting at, and asked if I meant 'stall' instead of 'dive'. Offering "this is all wrong, I don't even want to bother" seems like an overreaction.

  25. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by NigelRed5 View Post
    NASCAR teams are free to build their own chassis and run their ownengine programs if they so choose. They have lists of approved suppliers andparts, but many of those parts also have choices. it is highly regulated,but it is not single supplier like most "SPEC"series.
    "It is highly regulated" = six of one half a dozen of the other. Same result, different method.

    Even on a Nascar forum I go to people call them "spec" cars from time to time, and no one bothers to correct them.

    No one cares enough to argue the semantic difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakester View Post
    Cost controlled maybe....'cheap', no.
    Like I said in my post "cheap" is relative term in motor racing. Nascar is a very "expensive" series where teams spend "lots of money", but when compared to F1 and their more open rules set; the costs look downright "cheap".


    Quote Originally Posted by Nigel Red5 View Post
    it's not as much about lower cost, its known, controlledcosts and more importantly balanced competition.
    Controlled Costs = Keeping costs "cheaper" / lower, than they would be with a more open rulebook in the name of "Balanced Competition".


    This is all just semantics.

    .
    Last edited by Wes350; 06-14-2017 at 03:58 PM.

  26. #176
    Now this is a very good point...

    Quote Originally Posted by indyrjc View Post
    True under the current system. However, spec racing in IndyCar has done nothing but drive costs sky high for everyone.

    All of those stories about $1-$2M of damage to the cars at Texas last weekend point out just how expensive Indy style spec racing really is. If teams or secondary suppliers were allowed to build spares for Indy teams the costs might have been down in the several hundred thousand range. And if smaller teams were allowed to buy older equipment at market prices you would see a whole bunch of more teams showing up.

    Of course, on the spare parts front IMS/IndyCar gets a cut of every sale and takes fees for most "approved" parts on the Dallara spec cars. That's the real reason there are spec rules. It's allows IMS to have one more revenue stream. With a truly open rule book they would get nothing.

    And if engine rules were relaxed to where there were alternatives other than the current monopoly costs might drop as well. Plus there might be greater overall fan interest in the series if rules were opened up which would also attract more potential sponsors. ...
    Yes I agree costs would be lower - dare I say "cheaper". If Da$$ara did not have a stranglehold on the supply/cost of parts.

    But what do you mean by opening the rule book?

    I see things this way:

    Are the powers that be at ICS willing to front the development costs to own the IP for a new future chassis / aero kits, so that they can allow different suppliers and even teams to make/repair parts on a more "open market" that could drive costs down for everyone.

    i.e. Going to a slightly similar "tightly regulated" spec model in the vein of Nascar.... ???



    Quote Originally Posted by indyrjc View Post
    I know none of this is going to happen but the premise that spec racing lowers costs is pretty much a myth. If true market forces were allowed in IndyCar people might be surprised at just how resourceful racing teams can be. ...
    I disagree here, "spec" does "lower costs" by controlling them vs. having a more open series like F1 and LMP1.

    All the proof of that you need is to look at the "crazy money" Penske and other teams spend on their damper programs, which is the one thing on the car they are allowed to develop.


    .

  27. #177
    Insider Nigel Red5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On Chesapeake Bay
    Posts
    14,424
    Blog Entries
    8
    And what of the individual team development costs, safety and performance testing costs, manufacturing costs? Maybe someone should ask Penske how much he used to spend a season in 2017 dollars running his shop in England building his own cars. What would a Lola or Reynard cost to run and develop independently. How much does it cost Chip to run that tunnel and test in PA? Chip can't even get one of the winningest drivers in the series a regular sponsor.

    I"d absolutely love to see the CART days, but it's unrealistic and the majority of the teams either DON'T want it or Can't afford it and returning to that isn't going to magically increase TV numbers 200% and have sponsors knocking the doors down to be in indycar.

  28. #178
    Dakinca91 dakinca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edwardsville,IL // Auburn,IL
    Posts
    1,738
    Today during Le Mans, Marshall Pruett said Lamborghini was almost the 3rd engine manufacturer. But they declined beacsue they want to build a prototype to compete with.

  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by dakinca View Post
    Today during Le Mans, Marshall Pruett said Lamborghini was almost the 3rd engine manufacturer. But they declined beacsue they want to build a prototype to compete with.
    No big loss. Likely no activation, no long term commitment, and probably just enough horsepower to beat Lotus
    Indy, Cleveland, Mid-Ohio, Pocono, Michigan, Long Beach, Watkins Glen, Kentucky, Milwaukee, Road America, Iowa, IRP - 61

  30. #180
    Registered Unser atrackforumfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Blog Entries
    1
    Yeah, we don't need the Volkswagen Group or people around the world who own Ducatis and Miuras paying attention to Indy. **** those guys.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •