Perhaps we now know why Richmond is not on the 2010 IndyCar schedule.
According to Curt Cavin of the Indianapolis Star, Phillip Morris USA will not continue its free ticket voucher program at IndyCar races in 2010.
No wonder Terry Angstadt has become so fond of promoters that are subsidized by governments.
It is difficult to imagine that IndyCar will return to Kansas Speedway after 2010 unless more than 50,000 Middle Americans suddenly determine that what they really want to watch at the Kansas oval is an international road racing series. The Kansas IndyCar race was supported not only by the Marlboro ticket program, but also by NASCAR fans who were forced to buy bundled tickets.
Now, both subsidies are gone.
Phillip Morris USA will continue to sponsor Team Penske - for 2010, at least. But perhaps we now are better able to understand why Tim Cindric has become so keen to bring star NASCAR drivers to Indy next year in order to increase television ratings.
Roggespierre
Roggespierre said…
ReplyDelete"It is difficult to imagine that IndyCar will return to Kansas Speedway after 2010 unless more than 50,000 Middle Americans suddenly determine that what they really want to watch at the Kansas oval is an international road racing series."
There you go again blaming the product, when we all know by way of Andrew B. the real cause of IndyCar's sufferings are:
1. The networks do not promote the IndyCar enough
2. The promoters do not promote IndyCar enough
3. The sponsors do not promote IndyCar enough
4. The fans do not promote IndyCar enough
Accordingly, if everyone just chants "IndyCar is great," everything will be fine.
-John
Penske's having trouble finding sponsorship that makes many of his projects work. That's why he's gone from ALMS & leaving Grand-Am. If Marlboro pulled out of the sport entirely, Penske's days would be numbered and we wouldn't hear about a 3rd car.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, we know what the score is here. Maybe the IRL can see if the state of VA wants to subsidize a race at VIR?
Now, if I was in Homestead, and I noticed an ABSURDLY large portion of the crowd wearing red Penske hats and other garb and generally sitting in what seemed to be very large seating blocks, was I watching the Phillip Morris voucher program in action?
ReplyDeleteBecause if so...ouch.
BTW, comment by Roggespierre 9/13:
"...make the Indianapolis 500 and IndyCar racing undeniably awesome again"
Don't know about missions and visions, but THAT's a battle cry I could get behind.
I have so many technical questions. How many mpg can we get and still go 200+ at Indy? Would narrower tires make batter racing, or will the tires wear even faster? Are side-pods and wings really needed at 200+? Can electric, hybrid, and conventional engines compete in the same series?
ReplyDeleteHaving NASCAR drivers in the 500 would be an excellent idea, now and in the future. What about champions from other series?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI wish that I could answer your technical questions. Regrettably, I am in no way qualified to do so.
Nevertheless, we will get into those issues as we consider Product Development in the New Day Rising project.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
As a Marlboro smoker and a racing fan, I am proud to have been selected as the voodoo doll for John (X)'s attack.
ReplyDeleteButts were kicked today. Bigtime.
Such recognition of fact is evident in every one of my public posts. Your inbility to evaluate them from more than a one dimensional perspective is your problem, not mine.
I have butts to kick.
_______________________________________________
Andrew Bernstein
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I have so many technical questions. How many mpg can we get and still go 200+ at Indy?"
I believe the current Indy cars are getting around 2 or 3 mpg at race speed using ethanol. What's actually possible? Depends on the fuel and the powerplant. Internal combustion engines are about 18% efficient at converting fuel into motion. If it were possible have 100% efficiency, that would equate to about 11 to 17 mpg. The maximum theoretical efficiency for internal combustion engines I think is around 35-40% so the maximum limit would be more in the ballpark of 8 mpg with ethanol, 12 mpg with gas or 14 mpg with diesel. (If I did all the math and conversions correctly... it's late.)
"Would narrower tires make batter racing, or will the tires wear even faster?"
I suppose this would be subjective but I think the answer is yes. Less traction makes the cars harder to drive and increases the driver skill component of racing. I think a better solution might be to leave the tires wide (they look cooler that way!) but require much harder compounds. Less traction, less wear than narrower tires and fewer "I got up into the marbles" accidents.
"Are side-pods and wings really needed at 200+?"
Needed? No. But to compensate for the much lower (and safer) corner speeds, the straightaway speeds would have to increase (i.e. more power) to maintain 200 mph lap speeds. Similar to the tire comment above, I think drastically reducing aero downforce would increase the importance of driver skill and reduce the dominance of the well engineered teams (Penske, Ganassi). I suspect that wings are such an iconic image for an Indy car that eliminating them may not be popular. But you could limit the size.
"Can electric, hybrid, and conventional engines compete in the same series?"
I imagine the rules can be structured to allow them to compete evenly in the same series. The question is what would that look like? Would it be at 200 mph or 60 mph. Hybrids would have a better chance given that they have a conventional engine along with the electrical hardware. Electric cars have a long way to go to be able to compete in a 200 mph, 500 mile race.
--Dave
hi
ReplyDeletehi
ReplyDelete