And so we move on.
The second Core Benefit that I have proposed is that of Intrigue. Some notions that might fit within this category include the following.
- Anticipation
- Innovation
- Suspense
When I think of Intrigue, I think of that which is either new or unknown.
I welcome your thoughts on this Core Benefit.
Roggespierre
Because I am an Engineer, I can't use fancy words like "Intrigue". However, I can use other words... like "variables" and "trade offs", and these can be used to create what you are asking for.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, I give you the IRL's "push to pass" vs. F1's "KERS". They both do the same thing... create a boost of power. The F1 system, not surprisingly, does it in the most convoluted and expensive way possible, where as the IRL system is simple. HOWEVER, the F1 system has one key advantage.... the trade off. In F1, teams COULD use KERS... but teams that did use it had a performance DIS-advantage due to the system's weight.
This is what the IRL needs to consider.
I would have made the choice to use push-to-pass a trade-off. You can use it, but if you do you need to carry 50 extra pounds, for example.
Now, of course, on ovals the best technical package become evident pretty quickly... especially when everyone is running the same stuff. So the IRL needs to go into every weekend with a bunch of different variables... and the teams won't know exactly which ones are in effect until they get there. Here are some suggestions:
-Push-to-pass OR 10 extra gallons of fuel
-2 sets of option and 2 sets of prime compound tires... OR 6 sets of one compound tire.
-Kick-ups and other aero-doo-dads OR adjustable front and rear wings
The IRL needs to have multiple variables, so no team can cover all options. I would also strongly suggest at least one of those options should be the "tortoise" option... so... for instance... Sarah Fisher can skip buying 7 sets of tires a weekend and instead can get by with three sets... but she also gets a weight break and a 15 gallon bigger fuel tank.
Some might suggest this means not everyone plays by the same rules... but let's face it... SFR does not play by the same rules as AGR, TCGR or MTP anyway. Let's make it official... and maybe Sarah can out smart them once in a while.
The ACO had a interesting way of throwing in multiple variables and appealing to some of the areas of aggrandizement (i.e. innovation); equivalency formulas. You can race a gasoline engine at Le Mans, but you take a hit that the diesels don't (which gives them an advantage).
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to make it "manufactured" by any means, but there's ways to do that.
Donald,
ReplyDeleteThose are some interesting ideas. "...and Maybe Sarah can out smart them once in a while." A situation in which that could happen would definitely make things more interesting for the fans.
Anyway, when I think about intrigue, the product element that first comes to mind is:
1) The cars - innovation ("new, unknown"), many potential variables ("unknowns")
also,
2) The tracks - NOT to get into the oval/road course thing, but track diversity and event diversity, especially when different settings favor different teams and drivers, can be advantageous. I'm definitely in the "ovals" camp, but the road courses this year were certainly much less soul-crushing: you didn't KNOW that Penske/Ganassi were going to run away with it...until it happened, of course.
3) Rules/regulations - hand in hand with cars and tracks.
4) Driver dynamics - should come about naturally from a product designed to appeal to fans. Stories like PT vs. Helio won't have to get killed (I mean, imagine explaining to a casual fan who happened to find the dynamics of the Toronto race fascinating that PT isn't even going to be around for the rest of the year...Andrew Bernstein, if you're out there, this is the sort of thing that horribly undercuts "conversion" efforts.)
But in any case, "cars" has to be the big one, right?
"You don't want to make it "manufactured" by any means, but there's ways to do that."
Maybe going a little too detailed, but is this a fair way to classify variables with respect to the "cars" element?:
1) Rules set by sanctioning body lead to organic development of variables by teams and manufacturers.
2) Sanctioning body creates certain variables via rules that force teams into choices ("trade-offs", most of Donald's suggestions)
3) Sanctioning body introduces new features, the primary intent of is to create variables (p2p).
I mean, I'd love to see IndyCar mostly in the #1 category...but if #2 was done in such a way that it really doesn't feel "manufactured" (and especially if it allows non-Penske/Ganassi teams to get "lucky"), MY feelings of intrigue would be enhanced.
Ironically, I just read something yesterday for the first time about the KERS system.
ReplyDeleteBut even more interesting was the way the Button/Webber battle for second played out in...what, Abu Dhabi? (looked like a horribly sterile circuit). During the last couple of laps the cars were CLEARLY on the edge, slipping all over the place. Almost makes me want to start paying more active attention to F1...hmm...
Another topic probably, but less downforce/more power just doesn't seem to be the wrong way to go.
BC and Donald: This notion of intrigue comes back to something I have been harping on for a long time. Let's increase the variables so that the drivers actually have to DRIVE the cars. Let's see who can drive up to the edge and keep it there, or who occasionally crosses the edge but manages to save it. Let's see who has the skills to do that on a consistent basis. I want to hear a driver say in a post race interview something like "I was at the ragged edge all day trying to stay ahead everyone and occasionally I stepped over the edge" and really mean it. This also plays into the aggrandizement aspect too. We identify with the driver.
ReplyDeleteDonald,
ReplyDeleteWelcome! It's good to have an engineer here. I'm the farthest thing from it that you'll find. Your expertise is an ingredient that we need around here.
I agree with BC about the technical rules being key to Intrigue. For example, relatively open rules meant that Jim Hall's Chaparral was allowed to have a clear competitive advantage on the track when JR won Indy in 1980. I would argue, however, that the Chaparral lent Intrigue to the 500. It was new and interesting. Fans talked about "ground effects" a lot in those days. Unfortunately, the technology ceased being interesting just as soon as everyone else had it.
TCGR and Penske appear to have a similar advantage on the ovals today. But I would argue that their advantage does not generate Intrigue among fans. Whatever it is that creates the advantage is not detectable to the layman. It is therefore not interesting.
Ask fans in 1980 what JR's advantage was, and they would have said, "ground effects". Ask fans the same question today about TCGR's and Penske's advantage, and they'll say, "money". They're right.
Money will always be important. But it need not be the ONLY source of competitive advantage. Today's tightly controlled rules effectively ensure that this is the case.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Guys,
ReplyDeleteTo me, Intrigue is all about generating interest in the unknown. The goal, I think, is to have fans asking themselves certain questions.
How will they/did they do that?
Who's going to do it?
Can he/she/they do it?
The range of possible answers must be compelling and, to a degree, mysterious. At the moment, they are neither. For example:
Q: How will/did they do that?
A: They outspent the competition by a factor of five.
Q: Who's going to do it?
A: TCGR or Penske
Q: Can he/she do it?
A: If he drives for TCGR or Penske, then yes. If not, then no.
There is no Intrigue with regard to chassis, engines, drivers, and race strategy.
This must be rectified.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
"R"
ReplyDeleteThis is where Donald's idea of introducing variables into the series has merit. By allowing multiple engines, chassis, tires, and aero packages. And getting rid of supply chain arbitrage will create intrigue. To wit: Team G uses one set of variables and Team P uses a different set, Team A uses a completely different set of variables. The fan is going to wonder (hopefully) whose set of variables is going to work better on this track? Is this engine/chassis combination going to be better?
A good example of a trade-off is the drag vs. downforce trade off. Do you want the car to stick in all situations or do you want to trade downforce for speed. Some of this is driver preference and some is dictated by track specifics. A good example of driver preference was shown at Texas (I think it was). They showed in-car pictures of the position of the steering wheel as the cars went down the backstretch. Some drivers had the steeering wheel slightly pointing right, others were dead staight up and down, and some had the steering wheel slightly left. All the while the car was going straight.
Increasing the variables that the teams has to consider is going to add interest. Now the TV viewers will get a better perspective of this than the fan at the track because TV can point out the variables used by the various teams.
Donald,
ReplyDeleteYours is the first set of actionable ideas I have seen written anywhere with regard to the current equipment.
If you do some research to develop these initiatives to refine their low cost implementation, and reduce the "gimmick' factor to the highest possible dergree, you will end up with a section of suggested specification changes in your strategic planning notebook that looks similar to mine.
Pie in the Sky is not one of the sections.
_________________________________________
Andy Bernstein
Excuse me. "Degree". I often spell that word incorrectly, without the paper on the wall as reference.
ReplyDelete_______________________________________
Andy Bernstein
Donald,
ReplyDeleteThe multiple variables idea is a good one. I admire that you're thinking of ways to make the present formula more interesting.
As to whether or not it adds much in the way of Intrigue, I really can't say. The various options seem as if they would be difficult for most fans to follow.
You have provided food for thought.
Appreciatively,
Roggespierre
I think a trade-off is what moves something like push-to-pass from variable to gimmick. If EVERYBODY can do it... and there are no consequences to doing it... then it is a gimmick.
ReplyDeleteIf teams had a choice between push to pass and a 10,000 RPM rev limit or no push to pass and a 10,500 RPM rev limit, it might make people think twice before choosing. If the IRL came up with the "either-or" choices on Friday morning, the teams would not have the ability to test them or run them through sims. They would have to take their best shot and sometimes they hit a homer, and sometimes they strike out.
The added benefit to something like this is it is CHEAP.
Donald,
ReplyDeleteThat's a compelling and convincing argument, in my opinion.
I do have a question, however. Wouldn't TCGR and Penske just spend more time and money running sims and conducting scenario analysis? Is it not possible that they might attain an even greater advantage than they have now?
Thanks again for contributing.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Andy Bernstein said: "If you do some research to develop these initiatives to refine their low cost implementation, and reduce the "gimmick' factor to the highest possible degree, you will end up with a section of suggested specification changes in your strategic planning notebook that looks similar to mine."
ReplyDeleteBefore one goes down this developing path, at what point do "tradeoffs" and "variables" cease to be legitimate racing and become something out of Mario Brothers? How far is one willing to go? What's the guiding ethic?
You are right that the technical details of creating "variables" would be difficult for many fans to follow. I however, think this is not a problem because of two reasons. They are:
ReplyDelete- The pure fact that the outcome of the race would be in doubt will, by nature, create intrigue to even the most non-technical fans. There is almost no intrigue in Indy racing now, because there are really only a few drivers that have a chance of winning any given race.
- The technical stuff will FEED THE GEEKS. Feeding the geeks is a great way to build a core group of fans. For proof of this, compare the Wikipedia entry for Mohandas Gandhi to that of the List of "Venture Brothers" episodes.
>>Wouldn't TCGR and Penske just spend more time and money running sims and conducting scenario analysis? Is it not possible that they might attain an even greater advantage than they have now?<<
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would ask "Is that possible?" :) Secondly, if you throw enough variables in, the potential permutations grow exponentially. Also, if you announce the variables with little time to spare, you limit the ability to even simulate all of the options.
I stated before the chance that Sarah Fisher might be able to win an Indycar race with something like this. I don't REALLY think that is realistic. However, it might be satisfying enough if every car in the Andretti stable is running a different plan. It might be good enough if Dario is on one plan and Scott is on another and at least one of them sucks on any given weekend.
>>Before one goes down this developing path, at what point do "tradeoffs" and "variables" cease to be legitimate racing and become something out of Mario Brothers? How far is one willing to go? What's the guiding ethic?<<
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with you that there needs to be a "guiding ethic", auto racing is, by nature gimmicky. Even the most simple form of racing... drag racing... is filled with gimmicks.
It is the nature of the beast.
The question isn't "is it gimmicky" (because it is), but "is it still worth doing even though it is gimmicky".
Donald wrote: While I do agree with you that there needs to be a "guiding ethic", auto racing is, by nature gimmicky.
ReplyDeleteSo, somewhere between "push to pass" and spewing oil onto the track ala James Bond is the line, i suppose. What's the point of talking about (or spending money on) "innovation" if gimmicks ultimately make the game?
In answer to Rocketman:
ReplyDeleteThe dual tire compound requirement for road racing is a gimmick: however, it adds a strategic element for the teams to deal with and the viewers to consider. It also enables overtaking opportunities by creating speed differential, and enables further track position changes by its effect on pit strategies. The fact this marketing opportunity has not been exploited by Firestone is a missing ingredient...otherwise, the gimmick works.
Throwing last-minute curveballs is a gimmick, and in my view an ill-conceived and unneccesary one. And, as was pointed out, it merely presents different contingencies that the best prepared racer would be best prepared to deal with. Penske can run computer simulations on Helio's digestion time of a three egg omelette.
Weight penalties and fuel capacity variations are gimmicks that are way over the top, and also not necessary in my opinion. Wrong answers.
The guiding ethic lies in studying the variables present in an earlier age of diversity of the equipment. Reintroducing all available variables for use on the current cars does not result in gimmicks. Details beyond that are intellectual property I am not going to disclose, unless my proposals are rejected. In that case they will be useless for anything more than speculation, and nothing of value to post here.
They also bear no relevance to some mythical car of the future you are attempting to devise.
In that case, the lesson of the KERS system should serve as an example: this is a revolutionary, not an evolutionary technology. The design concepts for energy storage are valuable. However, the millions of dollars invested by many constructors proved to be costly diversions to their other R&D, and KERS was shelved as a result.
Unless you are prepared to completely shut down IndyCar racing until your dream car materializes, improvement to the current cars is the priority. Future designs must be compatible for competition with the current cars: otherwise, the existing assets of current competitors will be reduced to zero the day a dream car goes on sale at a dealer near you.
On another note, careful examination of Curt Cavin's articles and quotes on Trackside reveal much less than an apex of consistancy. You should take a page from Helio's book and look a lot closer at what you are being fed.
It would be nice to have some supporting evidence from the anonymous cook who served up the information about new associate sponsors.I haven't read that recipe anywhere but here. It's a scoop of something, I'm not quite sure what.
I could look up the day I first heard the term "aggrandizement". United States Secretary of State James Baker used it in a speech at the United Nations, and I dove for my dictionary.
He was describing the grandiose policies of Sadaam's Iraq. Aggrandizement is Gene Simmons showing up at an IndyCar race in a limo with an armfull of floosie. Aggrandizement is an IndyCar team with a catered outdoor mobile restaurant, surrounded by velvet rope to keep the lunchbucket ticket buyers out.
If you plan to attract new fans, and that is the only successful strategy, you can put the "sense of community" on the KERS shelf too. New fans wander around the track, not sure what to look at and feeling quite left out of the joke. Same for TV surfers.
You can only realize that benefit after you first get them to participate in the event, educate them on the nuances to the best possible degree, and hope that surround style marketing and information exposure stars to saturate.
That's when the sense of community develops, and the recognition of drivers is established. They're already fans at that point. Camaraderie is an effect of their continued participation, not an inducement to attract it. Wrong answers.
Andy Bernstein
Ab said: "They also bear no relevance to some mythical car of the future you are attempting to devise.
ReplyDeleteYou got the wrong guy on this - I think a series devising a car is repeating a fool's errand. You may recall someting about $25 million on the table that I long ago suggested. But carry on...
Rocketman53,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, the farther we go with this, the more your $25 million idea appeals to me. Nevertheless, we press on.
Incidentally, we haven't even begun to discuss the cars, so I don't think it's fair to say that anyone is attempting to create a dream car.
We are discussing the core benefits that must accrue to customers if IndyCar racing is to become a competitive product.
Roggespierre
To Rocketman:
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for creating confusion, I was neither quoting nor misquoting you.
The first four paragraphs of my entry were directed toward your question about the perceived validity of prospective rules changes. The balance of my entry was directed as rebuttal to previous positions as stated by Roggespierre and other contributors here.
The broad subject range requires fine strokes with separate brushes, and I apologize for creating the impression of slathering you with a wide one.
Andy Bernstein