The entire press release is below. My commentary follows.
TONY GEORGE RESIGNS BOARD MEMBERSHIPS
OF INDIANAPOLIS MOTOR SPEEDWAY, HULMAN & COMPANY
INDIANAPOLIS, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 - The Board of Directors of Hulman & Company and affiliated companies, including the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, has received the resignation of Anton H. "Tony" George from the board of directors effective immediately, according to Mari Hulman George, chairman.
"As members of his family, we are sorry to see Tony leave," said Mrs. George. "We are grateful for his service to our company as a board member and of course for formerly serving as CEO and president of our companies. I speak for our whole family in wishing him well.
"All of us had hoped that Tony would continue to serve on the board, and we made that clear to him. We are disappointed with his decision to step down despite our wishes."
His resignation removes George from any remaining role in Hulman & Company, Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Indy Racing League, IMS Productions and other affiliated companies. His term as CEO of the family companies ended June 30, 2009. He continues to be involved in racing through his ownership of Vision Racing, a competitor in the IZOD IndyCar Series of the Indy Racing League.
The board vacancy will be addressed at a later date. In addition to Mari Hulman George, board members include Nancy George, Josie George, Kathi George-Conforti and Jack Snyder.
Mari Hulman George said she is very pleased with the direction of the company and the progress that has been made during the last six months.
"Our company is healthy and is weathering the economic recession well," she said. "Jeff Belskus, president and CEO of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and Curt Brighton, president and CEO of Hulman & Company, are both doing excellent jobs in guiding our companies through this difficult time. Many hard decisions have been made, and now our companies are well positioned for the future."
I would be interested to know exactly why Mari believes that the IMS and IRL are so well positioned.
The IMS is going to be for sale before long. That's my prediction. That is not to say that the Hulman George Family intends to sell. I believe that the opposite is true.
Unfortunately, intentions mean very little in light of the gross incompetence that threatens this firm. Eventually, the family will have not choice but to sell. All that remains to be seen is 1) how soon, and 2) for how little.
Roggespierre
I cannot imagine the Speedway being sold by Mari, particularly with the centennial underway. This strikes me as Tony telling his family to eff off by walking out. It's what happens to many family businesses. Some survive; others don't.
ReplyDeleteI think Rocketman may be right. This sounds like TG throwing a snit because he couldn't get his way. The core business of Hulman & Company is doing quite well thank you very much i.e. Clabber Girl Baking Powder. The question now remains: are the sister's going to wake up and smell the coffee now that the last impediment (TG) to not subsidizing the IRL is gone. Can they see the need to hire someone from outside the "family circle" to take the upcoming wreck that is the 500 and grab it by the scruff of the neck and get it back on track? Let 's hope they can.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm... me thinks this is a GOLDEN OPPPORTUNITY to put together something to present to sister's and get not only 500 restored to its past glory, but also to see if we can't craft a new series with none of the baggage of the old one. I think we should have something ready to present by the end of June of this year. Can we do it? We better hope that we can, because if we can't make them see the logic and reason for changing. then I will join Rocketman's crusade too.
ReplyDeleteI think we should have something ready to present by the end of June of this year. Can we do it?
ReplyDeleteI like that sort of talk, though I bet procuring the stage from which to formally present ideas is a pretty big hurdle. "As if", though, right? Because you never know.
Maybe TG will do like everybody else has, and leave for NASCAR and start a "Vision Racing" stock car team soon? I hear most of their races are actually on TV down there and finding companies willing to pony up $$$ isn't nearly as difficult as it is in Indy Car (new primary and secondary sponsors are literally being announced by the day in NASCAR). I also hear NASCAR tends to favor oval racing too.
ReplyDeleteTalk about the ultimate "stick it up your wazzu" if that happened (which I don't think will, but who knows....)
Here is another take on Tony's departure:
ReplyDeletehttp://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/miller-whats-next-for-tony-george. You may have to copy and paste.
From the Miller article: "It’s estimated that it cost (depending on the year) $20-50 million annually to keep the IRL up and running since 1996."
ReplyDeleteThere's your new Sweepstakes purse.
I think your correct GM and yes it is scary. My thoughts are of the value of the property that IMS sits on. Far more valuable as a new building site than a race track. Close to the airport and Interstate. Would make a excellent business campus with the exsisting golf course. I can see the real estate developers drooling now !!
ReplyDeleteI cannot imagine selling the Speedway is in anyone's immediate plans, certainly not Mari Hulman's. Investing a quarter billion or more since 1996 in a series to reach this point is folly - on that we all agree. The ROI on that investment cannot have been much, and is apparently shrinking as the series verges on a new transfusion of capital for new equipment. To what end? Take the current purse and add a few million to it, to $25-30 million, and competitors will take on the costs of competition - even if for one race annually.
ReplyDeleteBut at what risk Rocketman53? If your argument is correct (and I do support you) who is going to lay millions on the line for just one race. If you don't win, you spent a lot of cash for nothing and sponsors get very little in return. I do feel if the payout on the one race makes it that if you qualify 33rd, you can pay the bills, then it might be worth the risk.
ReplyDeleteWrench, as you know, that's the way it was for years. Ask guys like Lew Welch or Lou Moore who spent the equivalent on Novis and Blue Crowns, or Andy Granatelli, who fielded teams at Indy and eschewed the USAC champ trail until 1968.
ReplyDeleteAnd not everyone/anyone needs to spend millions each year. Enter anything that meets the specs, maybe last year's car. There were often cars years old on the grid pre-96.
It's not "Winner take all" - it's winner takes a good chunk, and the rest filters down to #33. None of this is new. Now, if someone wants to organize a series, have at it.
Using 1995 as a template, the total purse was just over $8 million. An increase to $25 million is a factor of 3.1. The winning payout would have been $4.067 million, and the smallest $445,000.
ReplyDeleteLet's really get crazy - combine the $14.3 million paid in '09 with the minimum $20 million spent on the supporting an IRL, that's $34.3 million, a factor of 2.6. Winner in '09 took just over $3 million, which would increase to $7.8 million. Least takes $707k.
Take or leave it - I'll bet at least 33 entries - some interesting/innovative - would take it.
I think your right. I know if this were to happen I would empty my piggy bank, buy a older car, work my magic and pray like hell. I agree, it would provide innovate ideas and would seperate the rich kids form the racers! If I knew that I had a chance to take a small chunk of change away from the "500" I would not be sharing my thoughts with anyone!
ReplyDeleteHere's how it breaks down for “The Great American Race”:
ReplyDeleteThe posted awards for “The Great American Race” will be $18,689,238. The winner will collect a minimum of $1,445,250. The second, third, fourth and fifth-place finishers will receive a minimum of $1,044,400, $752,400, $598,450 and $471,500 respectively. The last-place finisher a minimum of $233,865.
That would not be a bad payout! Enough for one or two people to pool their resources and take a crack at it. Not bad at all Rocketman53!!!! Throw in a Indy 500 yearbook and lets give it a go !!
ReplyDeleteClymers or Hungness?
ReplyDeleteBTW: Seems like not only TG has faded from the scene...we must've arrived at the ultimate solution!
Hungness! They cover everyone at the 500, not just the beautiful people. As for the solution....I say we are really damn close. I buy your deal on the money, We all agree on the rules being opened up. So now it boils down to one thing...will the braintrust actually listen if we bring a professional proposal forward?
ReplyDeleteThere is an individual who posts on this blog under the alias of "Virtual Balboa".
ReplyDeleteHere is what an individual with the alias "Virtual Balboa" posted on TrackForum in the Formula One thread last night. He is responding to a poster who is anti-Castro:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop:
"It is a personal choice.
I choose to not support Murderous Dictators and those who support them.
There are other issues as well in regards to Ms. Kirchner....including suppression of the press
If you don't like it....to bad."
VirtualBalboa responds:
"You must be very bitter with just about every US president then."
_______________________________________________
The original post appears in a thread titled "They lost me", post #28.
I have requested that site administrators move the post to a political forum if this individual is a United States citizen and thus entitled to first amendment rights.
If this author is not a U.S. citizen, I do not recognize his right to such anti-American sentiment and have requested that the remarks be stricken.
Know your enemy.
Andy Bernstein
TrackForum struck the dog's comments at 1:43 AM, 1/27/10. I will not forget them.
ReplyDeleteAndy Bernstein
I missed the Tony George/Indy connection. See, I'm not here to get rent up over politics...that's another forum at which I post - and I never post about racing there.
ReplyDeleteBTW: The first amendment only protects speech from government interference. It offers no protection from a forum administrator cleaning up after customers.
You shouldn't forget them, Mr. Bernstein. Its true that we have and continue to uphold a number of very nasty people all over the world for a variety of reasons. But that's neither here nor there.
ReplyDeleteBull-riding CEO mulling offer to lead IRL
ReplyDeleteThe Indy Racing League board of directors has offered Randy Bernard, CEO of the Professional Bull Riders Association, its vacant CEO position...Belskus also talked to Just Marketing International CEO Zak Brown and Central Indiana Corporate Partnership CEO Mark Miles about the opening. Both said they weren’t interested.
http://www.ibj.com/bullriding-ceo-mulling-offer-to-lead-irl/PARAMS/article/16051
-John
Call the EMTs, and have them bring defibrillators... Without the deep IMS pockets, this series is flatlining.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought, maybe a DNR order would be better.
Oh goodie !!! Just what we need, more bull from some other cowboys!!! Lets try a real nove concept....hire auto racers to run a auto racing series. Think that might work???? Yea ...I know makes too much sense!!!
ReplyDeleteTo think that for months, stilettos of criticism were jabbed, myopic arguments were heralded, and an alliance of soothsayers once occupied this barren landscape.
ReplyDeleteI guess you all came to realize this wasn't such good ground. Or that the cause you fought for was not nearly as important to you as the fight itself.
As if.
That's pretty profound stuff...so why the hide behind anonymous?
ReplyDeleteI'm not hiding anywhere. The "good ground" I seek was never to be found here.
ReplyDeleteThat is a place where I hope to learn and contribute through positive discourse. That is a place where innovation is not blocked by the duplicity of deal makers, and the racing is not contrived by those who manipulate the balance sheets.
If I find it, I'll be sure and get back to ya.
Andy Bernstein
The fact that Roggespierre doesn't have unlimited hours to devote to this project is regrettable. I am a total fan of his approach.
ReplyDeleteThe need for the "fight itself" is regrettable as well.
But it is real. We are working with something that is a shell of itself. Roggespierre and I probably would not quite agree with the content of all the necessary principles of the thing we call IndyCar (e.g. "the pursuit of speed"), but we - and most or all of us here - would agree that the need for a change in vision is absolutely necessary.
IndyCar is a thing with a brilliant, dynamic past, but its present and foreseeable future is stagnant. This used to be a game that was wildly new every year, a game that captivated the world. Now it is just a game.
There are many reasons for this. Roggespierre has demonstrated the ability to consistently comprehend and attack those reasons. Others have chimed in with ideas.
The fun would be far greater if there was no need for a fight. The fun would be far greater if the ground we held was clear, unassailable "good ground". But it's not. It's surely not. Everything is contraction, every bit of good news is pyrrhic. IndyCar is NOT in a place it wants to be and NOT forging a clear path out of it.
THIS, this alone, was/is the voice of possibility, the place where it wasn't about what could be done with what exists, but what SHOULD be done with what COULD, what OUGHT to exist. And that, in this painfully contracting world of IndyCar, is as good a position as could be desired.
Seek to rationalize or to tear down, but this is all we want: to stand in the crowd at the Indianapolis 500, to look out over everything, and to say "This is all that it can be, all that it ever was, and all that one could hope for."
Is this a realistic pursuit? Maybe. Maybe not. But this corner of the internet is the only place where this pursuit has been truly, thoughtfully entertained, and for that it deserves great admiration.
Good Lord, fix your makeup.
ReplyDeleteThere won't be a Delta, or Swift, or Phoenix rising from the ashes. Let it all burn down, and thats all there will ever be on your ground. Ashes.
Andy Bernstein
I too wish to contimue the fight to get IndyCar where it should be. ie standing tall and shining in the sun. Having said that there is still much that can and should be done to ensure it gets there. I am encouraged by the new chassis objectives issued by the IICS the other day. It is a step in the right direction unless it is simply a pre-emptive strike to steal the thunder of the DeltaWing unveiling at this week's upcoming Chicago Auto Show. If that is the case then the new CEO of the IRL/IICS should demote Brian Barnhardt to simply being in charge of the racing and having no say in the choice of chassis providers or of the supply chain.
ReplyDeleteMy my Andy: Such pessimism! And what, pray tell, do you propose to replace the current situation with? Granted we all understand that you wish to have a job with the IICS, but what would you do if such a thing were to come to pass?
ReplyDeleteAs Roosevelt once said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Conversing onthis site bring forth new idea's, attitudes and the hope of a better tommorrow. Only those that particpate are considered to be the solution. Everyone else is just taking up space. I am for any thoughts that bring us closer to the final solution....so speak up boys and girls!!
ReplyDelete"STAY ON TRACK"
ReplyDelete2010 Dallara/ Honda
Specifications Andrew G. Bernstein Jan.22, 2010
-----------------------------------------------
The following changes are proposed to improve competition in the following areas:
1) Increase the significance of car control by reducing the ground effect component of total downforce;
2) Increase the significance of aerodynamic setup by permitting selective downforce levels;
3) Reduce the undertray surface area to further inhibit lift generation in pitch or yaw;
4) Increase the power output and frequency levels of the overtake assist function to increase passing oportunities on the racetrack.
5) Retain selective fuel consumption selectivity and strategy
None of these changes require major reconfiguration to the 2009 Dallara/Honda. The intent is to initiate the most significant improvements to competition at the least possible cost.
Aerodynamic Changes:
To the existing Dallara sidepod and undertray: Narrow the undertray two inches on each outer edge, and round the lower edge of the sidepod accordingly. The consequence is that the surface area of the undertray is now reduced, and air can more easily escape from under the car in off-axis situations. These are both anti-lift improvements. They are consistant with the modifications enacted in response to the 2004 anti-lift studies.
The major width and height of the sidepod is unchanged: aspects of crash intrusion and deformation are retained.
Modifying the shape of the oil and water coolers may be necessary, perhaps just angling them slightly within the sidepod would suffice. Even replacing them with coolers of slightly different shapes, i.e. a rounded off outer bottom corners, would not be a huge expense.
Re-profile the tunnels, since simply narrowing them would increase the velocity and increase the downforce they generate. CFD analysis and model testing required. If downforce reduction can be achieved with the addition of a splitter or fence, no major reconfiguration of the existing tunnels is necessary. Final configuration is designed to reduce the ground effect downforce component by 20%, while retaining the existing center of pressure.
Similarly, sidepod internal aerodynamics must be quantified and maintained to match current capabilities for cooling. I do not perceive these changes to be significant.
Regulation Changes:
Remove mandates for wing angle, wing flap angle and wicker dimensions.
Consequence:
Drive your Dallara down the back straight at Kentucky, or any other speedway, and guess what? It's just like the back straight at Motegi, because you dont have enough downforce to go through three flat. You can lift early (Dixon), go in deep and brake (Franchitti), or beg for more wing (Dunno).
The mandates for wing angles and wicker heights are eliminated. Take as much as you need, change it during the race if you want. Put enough wing on the car to corner flat, and you'll be a brick in a straight line.
Car control, variation in corner entry speeds, exit speeds, variation in straightline speeds.
Reduction to aerodynamic lift generation.
"Stay On Track" continued
ReplyDeleteAndrew Bernstein
Overtake Assist Changes:
The downforce reduction is only one of three changes.
The second is decreasing base horsepower to 585 HP, so that overtake assist is an 8% increase to 635. IICS has announced a change: I am afraid it will still not be significant (perhaps 20HP total.)
They said they doubled it. From 5 to 10 (625 base)? From 10 to 20 (615 base)? And the same number of available applications?
This greater differential of 8% follows the Ferrari Power Boost used in A1GP.
Establish overtake assist availability for the length of one straightaway (maybe the 20 second works for road courses too?), at a frequency of a minimum 25% of the total laps. 50 HP punch.
This perceived parameters can be achieved with ECU re-mapping. No internal engine modifications are necessary, current peak available output of 635 HP is unchanged.
_______________________________________________
Fuel Consumption Changes:
Third change is selective fuel consumption strategy. They just removed this variable: it now joins the list along with identical horsepower, chassis, aero setting, and tire compound that dilutes the quality of today's racing when compared to days when all variables were in play.
They went the WRONG way. Fuel consumption always was a determining factor in racing. It's a factor you can manipulate with brains and skill, and the advantage is maximized when luck (cautions) are in your favor. Ask Tony Cotman. Or Chip Ganassi.
I have an additional element to add to this equation: I consider it as marketable intellectual property and choose to retain those details at present. The result is an added strategic element which also yields an applicable marketing strategy to offer to a potential sponsor.
"Stay On Track"
ReplyDeleteAndrew Bernstein
Cumulative Effect of all Changes:
So whaddya got?
Car #18 has qualified in 18th place. His sponsors are pissed. We're going to the front, now.
Setup is slightly higher drag to carry cornering speed, fuel setting is full rich, and we're honking on the button. We're blowing off cars who are starting with a conservative strategy, and passing cars with higher downforce levels... provided we have the mechanical grip and enough skill to maintain our corner exit speed.
Yep, we're drinking fuel, but gaining track position. First pit stop sequence, slide in a smaller wicker and drop the front wing angle, go to full lean, lay off the button, draft with the front pack.
The more yellows we catch, the more positions we keep thanks to the early charge.
There's faster guys still behind us, so far. They started out conservative: low drag, low fuel consumption, and they're saving overtake assist for the last 25 laps.
They are going to come in for the last stint, add balanced downforce, go full rich and hammer to the flag.
Does #18 have enough overtake assist left to hold them off? Enough fuel to run full rich? Can he still maintain good cornering speed with less downforce? Will he get a little help to maintain track position from another yellow or two?
Don't know. Too many variables.
It's up to car control, mechanical grip, selected downforce, remaining fuel load, remaining opportunities to utilize maximum horsepower, and luck. Not too much different from 2009, except there is a measurable differential in speed between the cars. And a far greater emphasis on setup and car control. More overtaking opportunities throughout.
That's the IndyCar racing I watched growing up. It didn't suck.
Does lower downforce demand more (and different techniques of) car control? Ask Dixon and Franchitti about turn three at Motegi, they say yes.
Ask Johnny Rutherford about getting around Phoenix in the yellow submarine. Or about left foot braking.
Does selective downforce introduce speed differential ? Of course, ask Mike Hull and Larry Curry if they want it. They say yes.
Does 50HP overtake assist kick you in the butt? Ask J.R. Hildebrand, Marco, and Danica. They all drove A1GP cars. Every IndyCar driver will tell you 5HP is nothing, 10 will hardly be noticeable either. You're not going to blow somebody's doors with 20, either.
Is safety affected? Aero lift characteristics are reduced by the undertray/ sidepod modifications in step one.
Do the sum of the changes increase top speed, which has probably been set behind closed doors at 230 MPH? With low drag selection, the factors are as follows:
reduced rolling resistance (from lower ground effect downforce component)
reduced aero drag from frontal area decrease of leading edge of sidepods
reduced drag from lower wing angle/ wicker height if selected.
And with 635HP (on the button), you could set the car up to have a HIGHER trap speed: at the end of one straightaway per lap.
How much speed you can carry through the corner is your business, because you ain't going through flat. What your average lap speed becomes is your team's business, it depends on the mechanical grip level they can provide and the compromise of downforce level they select.
Reducing grip levels by changing tire compounds or sizes would be a MISTAKE. You can't expect Firestone to accept responsibility for improving the racing by decreasing the safety margin of their excellent product.
These drivers race at Motegi, and every road course with a sweeper where they are challenged to get through and carry their best speed. Reducing the ground effect downforce brings that challenge back to Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Chicago, Homestead, and the Speedway.
If you can't cut it, take all the wing you want and motor around from the back. The fast guys won't have any trouble getting around you, and have 50HP to seal the deal if they need it.
"Stay On Track"
ReplyDeleteAndrew Bernstein
And what does it all cost? Keep the fuel mixture knob, zero. Remap the ECU for increased overtake assist, no problem (ask a Honda engineer, I did). Make some selective rear wickers to slide in...old hat.
That leaves the undertray/ tunnel profile and sidepods. Replacement required? I'm not certain of that, and I lack the ability and resources to quantify the reduction or simulate the effect. I'm only guessing that 20% downforce reduction is appropriate.
Figures I have seen for total downforce generation at IMS are currently at 1000 lbs approximate total. Reducing the ground effect component decreases the effect of downforce evecuation in pitch or yaw events.
Design the new chassis around a 4 cylinder turbo, the day someone says they are willing to build one.
But we don't have to watch races that suck in the meantime.
I figured all of this out last October: I have publicly discussed many of these initiatives in the interim. If you have read similar proposals in public circulation, you now know the concepts of the original author.
Andy Bernstein
You can comment about that if you wish, or I can post 2011 and 2012 if you want to read them. Or my mission/ vision/ strategic planning statements for non-technical issues.
ReplyDeleteOr we can discuss why Dallara wil be building the next chassis, if the IndyCar Series ever decides to tell them what engine configuration to finish designing it around.
Andy Bernstein
What a disappointment. I was hoping to come back and find that someone had computed the reduction of the rolling resistance coefficient after the vertical load change from the downforce reduction was factored in. That's over my head.
ReplyDeleteI was going with 1565 lb min. weight + 170lb.
(driver plus equivalency weight) + 145 lb.(22 gallons ethanol @ 6.59 lb. / gal.) + 1000 lbs downforce = 2880 lb. total vertical load - 200 lb. = 6.94% reduction. That seems too simple to me, but it makes sense.
I wonder what the resultant increase in velocity would be. Prolly negligable, but with the minor drag force reduction from reduced sidepod frontal area, the sum of the components might mean a 1 or 2 MPH increase at 225MPH. Watcha think, oldwrench?
Maybe we could talk about piston speed instead. A 2.2 liter GM Ecotec I 4 turbo can live pretty comfortably making 500 HP (Rhyss Millen's 2006 Formula Drift car is the exemplar). Hell, the block architecture is capable of handling the 1400 HP, and you can get 25 passes out of a drag race build that is making 1000 HP.
But with the stroke reduced as much as possible, it still has an undersquare stroke ratio and a piston speed of 1724 m/min. @ 9700 RPM. That's a bit of a reliablity concern for an engine with a projected service interval of 3,000 miles, isn't it?
Maybe we should build one, 575 HP output will get the power to weight ratio just about right. We can bolt it on your dyno, wire that sucker wide open and run it for a coupla days, ya think?
Andy Bernstein
Well, that's certainly a chunk of material. I for one will read through it all, probably tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThat's great. If you're a friend of Les Mactagart, I'll be anxiously awaiting your analysis.
ReplyDeleteAndy Bernstein
STAY ON TRACK: Defining the Future
ReplyDeleteThere have been some great benefits realized since I entered into public discussions about the state of IndyCar racing. The time I have devoted has taught me much, and proven to be a worthwhile investment.
The exercise of writing is in itself a great tune-up for the mind. Clear expression of facts and ideas, sometimes abstract, requires very careful deliberation. I find that weighing each word helps to better focus the messages I intend to deliver.
Specific improvements for pit lane safety, vehicle specification changes, and promotional initiatives have all grown from the seeds I discovered in public discourse. One good example is demonstrated below.
As the 2009 IndyCar season was drawing to a close, I happened upon an ongoing public discussion between a number of cynics. Their criticism was unbending, and I challenged them to instead focus their efforts on how to correct the many faults they perceived.
Their response was to collectively begin drafting a vision statement, which they hoped would extend to concise expression of the mission and values they hoped IndyCar could achieve. They didn't get very far. I did.
Vision Statement:
The IndyCar Series will provide viewers and fans with the best in exciting competition and entertainment value.
Mission Statement:
The IndyCar Series will continue its tradition of featuring America's fastest racing and the world's finest drivers.
From the Indianapolis 500 to the most challenging oval and road courses in America and abroad, IndyCar will race to the leadership in capturing the full share of on-track excitement.
The pursuit of excellence will govern every aspect of our events: from the presentation of our races, to the preparation of our race cars, to the appreciation we show for each and every racing fan.
Teamwork, sportsmanship, and commitment are the tools we use to measure each individual's ability in their quest to become a champion.
Drivers, to your racecars. We welcome the world to Share The Ride.
Values Statement:
The highest standards of fairplay and equity will serve as the platform for competition.
The highest regard for safety will be central to the conduct of our events.
Innovation and opportunity will form the basis for our regulations.
The enjoyment of all racing fans will define the success of the IndyCar Series and its competitors.
Drivers, start your engines. We welcome the world to Share The Ride.
(c) Andrew Bernstein 10/19/2009
Prolly the first time anybody read that. People you know are reading it now.
Here? As if.
Transports load for Barber testing in 13 days.
ReplyDeleteConfirmed fulltime drivers: 14.
Everyone is gazing at cartoons on the wall.
No one is reading the handwriting.
Andy Bernstein
Andy,
ReplyDeleteWe can come up with ideas to make the typewriter a better product, but it doesn’t follow that we'll sell significantly more typewriters at the end of the day. Sure we'll increase sales somewhat - those sales will come solely from our increase share of the typewriter market - however we're not going to get consumers outside of our little market to buy the product by simply improving the product.
Your ideas have merit from a management perspective, but while marketing myopia can be an admirable trait for a product manager it's disastrous when present within an organization's leadership structure.
Anyway, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach with the new CEO, but I'm somewhat certain he'll be less concerned with the cars (bulls and horses) and more focused on the show. We'll see.
-John
I agree John! You can't hang sell something that people just don't want to buy. So take a deep breath and lets see what happens. When the 2012 rules come out, then we will know if it is time to stand up and cheer or get up and walk out!
ReplyDeleteI first came to this dirt insisting that the poor promotion and the staid competition of the present cars were the immediate problems to address. I was crucified for the former, and ignored for the latter: only nebulous visions of some great new day were offered as the salvation.
ReplyDeleteSo I did as much research as I could on both fronts. And I published the first of three transition steps to point out immediate modifications to the current equipment that could be made for 2010 to improve the product.
And what happens? I get lectured on the importance of promotion. No shit.
Here's a little piece of marketing news for you. Mr. Bernard assumes his leadership role on March 1. He will bring promotional skills and established alliances that will reap great benefits for IndyCar.
What will have already happened by that date...
To be continued.
Andy Bernstein
Before March 1, 2010:
ReplyDeleteWill the new Izod commercial have aired? You know, the one they shot in Panama, with Rahal and Moraes as two of their poster boys. If there were any Izod commercials surrounding the Superbowl broadcast, I missed them. A "tweet" posted by Rahal indicated he was expecting to see one too.
Before March 1...oh yeah, a photo shoot preceding the open test at Barber is scheduled for Feb. 23. Transporters load in 12 days.
How many signed drivers? Full time 15 comfirmed, part time 2. Moraes and Rahal? No seats yet, and no commercial. How's our marketing partner, the title sponsor feeling?
Fans will be invited for the photo shoot. The race will be held six weeks later. Maybe they will see no Vision, KV Racing, 3G Racing, or Newman/Haas/Lanigan cars at the test. There favorite driver may be absent. Gee, this upcoming race might suck.
Or, a group of teams run the test but have no funding to run the third race of the season. So locals see the entry list as the event date approaches and decide that the ticket isn't worth it.
The previous tests at Barber evoked comments about modifying the track, or increasing the overtake assist: there are no passing zones there. The track didn't get changed, the overtake assist will still be insignificant.
So without any of the immediate concerns addressed, and all eyes on 2012, that race is shaping up to be a pig. Promote it like hell, sell the 30,000 tickets, and it will be a pig that makes a little money. One race, that's how long you will keep the attention of the new fans you worked so hard to attract. Huzzah for promotion.
"So take a deep breath and lets see what happens." Yeah, no kidding. Or were you discussing the volumetric efficiency of the Ecotec combustion chamber, oldwrench?
What happens is that you can't improve the marketing without addressing the promotion AND the product. Which brings me back to exactly the same ground I walked in on last fall.
So I wrote a long piece about the propostion of team mergers, and listed all the examples from Nascar's recent history. I think your new hero read that too, not sure yet. There hasn't been any response to the marketing plans I dropped off in November, either.
I can't single out anybody in here as a fool, because nobody anywhere has their eye on what's going to happen before March 1. Or before 2012 arrives.
As for the quaint typewriter analogy: I don't think IBM stopped upgrading their existing product line until they were prepared to launch its replacement. They sure as hell didn't let their position in the marketplace crumble for two years, and expect to instantly revive a supply chain and customer base.
I think you call that "transition". I already covered that ground.
I don't think it's a quaint analogy to label the teams as the "supply chain". New cars could be built, but teams have to puchase and prepare them for presentation in the marketplace... or you have no product. The supply chain is crumbling, two years before the product line will be upgraded.
Is Dallara going to commit to break ground on a production facility in Speedway to build the new cars if the 2010 season is allowed to crumble? Is Izod going to add option years to their contract after promoting a season of pig races with their poster boys on the sideline?
No need to wait and see what happens, read the handwriting. If you hadn't been preoccupied with grand visions, you would have read it long before.
Andy Bernstein
In addition to the nebulous visions, here's another dead horse that takes a beating in here: the cost of doing business.
ReplyDeleteTwo Dallaras and one engine lease, in round numbers, is $2M. I'll be generous, say the final cost of new equipment is half that amount. Oldwrench'll tell ya he could screw them suckers together for a buck 3 80.
Go to the Panther racing site and count the personel. KV was the same, if their website is still up. Both teams have at least 25 guys on the salary, for single car entries (with T car).
I would guess the Team Managers and Engineers male a good buck. So I'll pick $75,000 as a reasonable average, and include employer social security contribution and employee insurance minimum costs in that number too.
That's $1.875M. No shop, equipment, promotion or office staff, spares, tires, transporter costs, travel costs, nothing.
If the cars were free, there are teams today that still couldn't afford to race them.
Now, Vision Racing has the assets but can't fund an operating budget. Same for Dale Coyne, although he's planning on spending his own money to try and field one car. No announcement yet, and the Boy Scout endorsement could be a wasted PROMOTIONAL tool.
Conquest has cars and insufficient funding too.
"I'm Parked Green".
And other principals are walking around with some associate sponsorship committments, but can't get close to operating budget minimums or asset purchases. What's the minimum car count in the Versus contract, or Izod's, or the number each venue promoter demands?
Don't know, but we're gonna get close enough to find out. And cheap cars won't make a bit of difference.
March 1 hell, the day Vision Racing closed its doors, here's what I came up with. Vision Racing + Dayle Coyne Racing + Conquest Racing. Bachelart's "I Drive Green" sponsorship goes on the #20 car for Ed Carpenter, another of Izod's poster boys. Coyne's #19 Boy Scout car is full time, with Graham Rahal in the seat.
That solves a few promotional problems, doesn't it?
Carl Haas + Gil De Ferran + Eddie Wachs. Form a partnership with those assets, and stuff Orial Servia in one seat and let him teach J.R. Hildebrand how to pedal in the other.
Since last fall, none of the existing or prospective owners have found sufficient new funding. Tags did it by busting his azz, and forming a coalition. One new car on the grid. No telling how many old ones won't be there.
Nah, no worries. We have fat air time buys for commercials, and a bunch of Boy Scouts who are going to get an economics lesson. And cartoons to look at while the grand new visions are written.
I was a Boy Scout. I thought this whole deal was gonna be about racing, too.
Andy Bernstein
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYou strike me as a classic example of someone who can't see the forest for the trees. You go on at great length about the current problems in Indycar (no arguement here) but don't appear to understand or care how it got that way. Instead you focus on tweaking the existing product while belittling those who try to explore why we are in this mess in the first place.
For example, you appear to have missed the point of the typewriter analogy. The point is that IBM does not stay in business by tweaking its typewriter designs to make them faster or look cooler. It stays in business by responding to what the marketplace really wants, and starts building computers. Indycar needs to get away from putting lipstick on its current pig, and start building the Indycar product that the American marketplace really wants. This doesn't just refer to the car, but clearly the new rules for 2012 represent an opportunity to begin that re-building. Thats why there has been discussion of the new rules and cars here.
Don't misunderstand, I think its great to brainstorm ways to improve the current racing product for the short term, and your suggestions appear to me to be pretty good for that purpose. But the focus of this venue is more about getting people to recognize the fundamental problems with this business and its product and that those problems NEED to be corrected or there can be NO meaningful improvement.
It is absolutely neccessary to understand why and how we got here, and what the American marketplace is actually interested in when it comes to motorsports entertainment. Otherwise it will be impossible to make the correct core changes to the Indy racing business that are needed for healthy growth in the future.
They say that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. They are wrong. In the real world, the blind squirrel DIES. It's high time that Indycar stop its willful blindness and open its eyes or it will share the squirrels fate.
Dave
Keep in mind that even back in the early 1900's the best buggy whip manufacturer died not because he made a inferior product, he died because a man named Henry Ford raised the ante with a thing called the Model T. Who needs a horse when a car will do? Same for Indy Car, cut the costs, open the rules, install Rocketman's 25 million reason package and they will come!!!
ReplyDeleteInstalling Andrew's suggestions would be more like putting a band-aid on a gash to the femoral artery. It will help in the short term, but the fundamental problem still remains. The product is still gushing copious quantities of blood. Unless the fundamental problem (gash in the femoral artery) is not fixed the patient dies. Much like the blind squirrel. It is imperative that we understand how we got to this place we are at now, so that it doesn't happen again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with oldwrench's final sentence. We have to do all that and soon. And how much we have to do depends on the new car specs and the series rules for 2012.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteThat's another case where I present one point of my position, and get criticized as if I am ignoring the rest.
The current chassis should have been replaced three years ago. The owners told IRL they couldn't afford to even consider it. There's your history lesson, the only one of relevance.
You think Dallara just came up with preliminary design studies purely as a reaction to the Delta project?
There's one thing more foolish than ignoring the present while you postulate about a future you may not reach.
"It is absolutely neccessary to understand why and how we got here, and what the American marketplace is actually interested in when it comes to motorsports entertainment."
The marketplace is completely new and evolving. Societal views about safety, green technology, media consumption, fiscal irresponsibility, everything is different than 20 years ago.
How we got here is meaningless. So is creating a dreamscape for the future, when you have no ability to transition into it.
Andy Bernstein
No more wasted time here. You're watching it bleed to death right now, and you're too foolish to be concerned.
ReplyDeleteAndy Bernstein
Alright, I've read all of the above.
ReplyDeleteDave is completely right.
Andy, you are attacking immediate issues with quality in-the-box engineering ideas.
But don't you see? There is a difference between offering mechanical solutions and being broadly visionary...AND THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!
We are not telling you that your ideas are invalid. We are simply arguing that their scope is limited.
Broad vision is required. Vision that says "we must change the game. We must change the culture. We must figure out exactly what it is and was and could be that captures the attention and emotion of Americans. And we must make every effort to make our product conform to this."
The typewriter analogy, further:
We say: Look, few like the typewriter anymore - if we don't figure out how to build a computer we're going to fail!
You say: No, no, look here. We need to focus on changing the keys to make them more comfortable and adding new fonts. That might help sales.
We say: That's all well and good, but we really need a computer.
You say: So you're ignoring the typewriter, then?
We say: Perhaps, to some extent. SOMEBODY's gotta do it.
You say: Well I've got ideas on how to improve the typewriter.
We say: So does the typewriter company. Yours may very well be better, but we need a computer.
You say: You're all just head-in-the-clouds dreamers. You want a computer? Well, how are you going to get there without first replacing the keys and adding new fonts...
We say: You're not approaching this broadly enough.
You say: You're not being realistic.
We say: But how will we ever get a computer!?
You say: I'll tell you how: first we must replace the keys and add some new fonts, then maybe replace the keys with a typeball, and eventually it will lead to your computer. Don't you see?
We say: Um, no. Don't YOU see?
This is the circle we are going in.
"The marketplace is completely new and evolving. Societal views about safety, green technology, media consumption, fiscal irresponsibility, everything is different than 20 years ago."
ReplyDeleteYup, and they'll change again tomorrow and next week. The historic constant until recent years as it relates to the 500 is broad competition of cars, drivers, and ideas. Those aspects have been removed.
Which brings us to re-opening the game. If someone can find a green-mobile, or one that runs on cold fusion that wins, others will follow and technology evolves, likely building interest in the event. And, within that context, albeit an expensive one, the rewards must be commensurate. The "cost containment" thinking must go in favor of the 33 most worthy make the field for a worthy prize.
(And, if enough decide to race at Barber, Toronto, and/or Kansas, that's good for them, and hopefully profitable, too.)
Andy,
ReplyDeleteI am not criticizing your pursuit of improving the current product to ensure its immediate survival. I'm saying that it can only take Indycar so far.
Any notion that relatively minor tweaks will put Indycar on the path to good health and growth is delusional. Long-term strategies are needed for Indycar to appeal to the real American motorsports market. Those strategies can only benefit from an understanding of why the current product does not connect with the marketplace. That's what I mean by "understanding how we got here". It is not "meaningless" but is in fact critical if the sport wants to be anything but a second or third-rate sideshow to the various NASCAR divisions.
Frankly, it seems to me like you do "ignore the rest." Your posts focus on short-term improvements, and that's fine. But I haven't seen you post much, if anything relevant to long-term strategy. In fact it seems that your posts are usually dismissive of the participants here because we do focus on long-term strategy. What, exactly is so "foolish" about that? Why can't both discussions go on at the same time? I don't share your opinion that increasing push-to-pass boost or tweaking downforce levels is vastly more important than assessing and correcting Indycar's core problems. That doesn't mean that I think it's stupid to discuss it.
"You're watching it bleed to death right now, and you're too foolish to be concerned."
Sorry, but that is utterly stupid and insulting. We are here precisely because we are concerned. Believing that fixing the core problems are the best way to stop the bleeding is neither foolish or a sign of lack of concern.
Dave
Andrew Bernstein Jan. 22, 2010
ReplyDelete2011 Dallara Specifications
All 2010 specifications retained as previously described, subject to analysis of their cumulative effect in competition.
The major change will be the available option of adapting a non-stressed four cylinder in-line turbocharged engine.
My preliminary research of available choices is inconclusive at present: there are a variety of 2.0 litre displacement engines, modified for racing by existing independent engine builders, which are suitable. I have specific details and am in the process of compiling additional information.
A non-stressed engine configuration is an essential element of this formula change, as are the establishment of equilivancy formulas to permit equal power output to 2010 performance levels.
A stressed engine block design will result in immediate obsolesence: the future chassis regulations for 2012 will require non-stressed engine installation. Design and construction of a new proprietary stressed engine configuration is an expensive and unnecessary mistake.
In 1982, one of my duties was the installation of non-stressed 350 C.U. Chevrolet engines into a stressed engine Lola and Tiga Can Am chassis. These engines were fitted with adapter plates by Ryan Falconer to mount to the chassis rear bulkhead and accept a Hewland DG300.
My presumption is that an inline four cylinder engine can similarly be adapted for fitment in the existing Dallara chassis. Of course the resultant changes to center of gravity and weight distribution would require resolution: I trust you guys, you know what you are doing. It would be my honor to lend a hand.
Accompanying changes for turbocharged requirements are inevitable. I am not well versed with turbocharged four cylinder racing engines, but my presumption is that addition of required ancillaries are possible within the current chassis.
The intended goals of adapting a non-stressed four cylinder turbocharged engine:
A range of existing contemporary powerplants are available, already used in competition, from a variety of independent builders. Manufacturer participation is not required. Mandated engine lease programs are not required.
Teams have the option of continuing the use of a 2010 spec Dallara/Honda race car. The intent is to outline a logical progression of the formula and permit teams to adapt as finances permit.
Teams opting for installation of the new spec engine into their 2010 Dallara chassis will have the benefit of developing the same engine which will be used in subsequent chassis designs.
Summary: STAY ON TRACK
Write the 4 cyl turbo spec, and builders can design it to fit the current chassis. With equivalancy, they can run against the Hondas. Then the new chassis can be designed to accept the 4 cyl engines, unstressed.
That works even if the decision for the new chassis is a Delta car. If the new chassis is instead an evolutionary one, call it SW 012, then you can have 4 cyl turbo SW 012's competing with four cylinder turbo Dallaras and V8 Dallara/ Hondas. The little guys can still run what they got, then phase in an engine program, and then install it in their new chassis when they can afford it.
So 2010 should bring reduced downforce and drag regulations, along with overtake assist that is more effective than they just hinted at (by lowering the base HP, not by modifying the peak output of the existing engine). All of that means minor ECU mapping, new sidepods and undertray, more driver car control required, and punch enough to pass on the straightaway. With enough skill and selective downforce levels, enough variety to pass in the corners, too.
2011, tubo four cylinders permitted. Equivalency established to match Dallara/ Honda 2010 performance levels.
2012, new chassis designs accepted after approval. If it's evolutionary, old Dallaras can still play too.
If not, the little guys are out.
Andy Bernstein
Andy,
ReplyDeletePoint taken. You have posted about something other than this years tweaks and again, I think they are some pretty good ideas. But I still see this as a continuation of a short-term adjustment strategy, which I'm not convinced will solve Indycar's core problems. Especially since I don't believe the core problems are limited to the car.
Anyway, I like reading your posts and think you have some good ideas. I just wish there was more open discussion and less of the dismissive attitude.
I have to give you credit though. I think you have generated more discussion here that there has been for a while.
Dave
I get dismissive when people criticize my work without first comprehending it.
ReplyDeleteConstructive criticism is the only mechanism that will help me learn anything. I originally got a tiny bit from Roggespierre, and went to great lengths to thank him for links that I found to be enlightening. Mostly marketing/ bizz analysis stuff.
A guy on another forum who has been reading some of my work put his phone number on line.
I called him up, and asked if he recongized my name. "Yep".
I asked him what he thought of my work. He says, "You carry your balls around in a wheel barrow. And I like that".
Message received, zero distortion. This ain't a freakin' abstract exercise to me.
Andy Bernstein
The little guy is already out for 2012.If the Delta wing concept or any of the other concepts are accepted, the cost of the cars and the turbo engines will exceed the present package in less than a year. If I follow the IRL correctly, the engines will be "SPEC" and purchased from an "approved" supplier. Same for the chassis and its parts. Hence no competition in any supply chain or manufacturer of chassis. I believe it is called " protected markets". If this comes to pass, all of the formentioned discussion on this and other sites is mute. So lets just see what happens next. Shall we??
ReplyDeleteWhere's a Mickey Thompson when you need one?
ReplyDeleteDeceased.
ReplyDeleteAshes to ashes.
That is actually true; it was a rhetorical question. And your answer is correct on many levels.
ReplyDeleteHere's something to consider, from the lips of Chip Ganassi at the unveiling of the Delta Wing:
ReplyDelete"The team owners are the ones that know the real costs and how fans and sponsors perceive the series. Ever since Tony George started his own team, he gets it. That’s why he’s on our side! He knows how expensive it is, how much control we don’t have, and how much money gets spent on things that we don’t need or cost too much. He’s a great partner to have.”
(http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-the-big-silver-vitamin/)
Isn't it amazing how when one has to pay the bills he or she "gets it"! I have been saying this for years. Seems to me that the problem rest again with the brain trust of the IRL. It is time to return to the rules of 35-40 years ago. Run what you brung and except for safety concerns, let the older equipment back in and let the innovators come forward.
ReplyDeleteI'm sold on 裕瑤's idea, who is apparently has an engine with a melamine block. Wrench, what say you?
ReplyDeleteBTW: Did anyone else notice the striking similarity between the proposed IRL Dart Car and the Daytona 500 trophy?
Nothing in a plastic version presently but I do have a rather unique racing engine I designed in my AutoCad! If they would allow it I certainly would give it a shot!
ReplyDeleteWrench, I'll bet you used to have one of those "Visible V-8" models, didn't you?
ReplyDeleteIs that right. Well why don't you show your work, wrench? Or is bragging and bitching the extent of it?
ReplyDeleteAndy Bernstein
No, it is the rules package Andrew! If they would specify a clear engine formula I would most certainly finish the prototype. As for Rocketman. Clever thought but it is based off of a modular design similar to the Miller-Offenhauser engines. And why do I want to show any advantage to someone else? I am a racer and I don't give away anything if a prize is attached to it. If you learn anything from history, it is the little guy who brings forward the ideas. When you don't have millions to run a car you get creative. Ask AJ Watson or George Bignotti that question!
ReplyDeleteNever saw where you showed a shred of technical expertise, other than to claim you designed revolutionary new gearboxes and engines that never saw the light of day.
ReplyDeleteSo what piston speed would be an ideal safe target for a four cylinder turbo racing engine with a projected service life of 5,000 miles at full output?
And can you present your understanding of how the Delta Wing's torque vectoring system will enable high speed cornering?
Andy Bernstein
That is your opinion! This site is not for any purpose other than to talk about how we feel about the rules.I at not here to argue with you. If you don't like my opinion, don't accept it. As for an engine piston speed....Try opening a book on engineering. Your a big boy...figure it out for yourself!
ReplyDeleteDang it, 裕瑤, look what you started!
ReplyDeleteSmile BC !!! It's just another day in that thing we call life!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'll be smiling when they embrace Rocketman53's idea...or at least when they announce that yes, a talented young American driver with the last name of "Rahal" can in fact procure an Indy car ride over, say, Takuma Sato.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...haha, on second thought I suppose that these aren't good things on which to attach one's demeanor.
Why pick on me?
ReplyDeleteBC- I agree !! If Rocketman's are right, then count me in!! If fact there are several I know who want to particpate. So, we shall see!!
ReplyDeleteGOOD NEWS!!!
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Rougespierre has "just faded away"...his good pal Virtual Balboa now has become a great IRL cheerleader, and pronounced everything honky dory in Gomerland. From TrackForum, today:
"Man, some rabbits have been pulled out of hats and we've got ourselves quite the series at the moment. I'm hoping for some more small miracles to appear and give us some more 24-25 car fields with some skilled guys. Cannot wait to root for Sato; Is there merch yet? I am actually not kidding."
"Merch" is how real cool dogs refer to "merchandise". Perhaps he and his pal will show up in their spiffy new EARL T shirts any day.
Andy
We shall see!!!
ReplyDeleteLOL, Andy. Look; I'm stunned the IRL got as many cars as it did, but there's some decent drivers that have shown up with a ride. Sato I've loved watching since his gutsy runs with the woefully underfunded Super Aguri.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah - I'm actually interested to see this season. I think talent wise its actually better than last year; I think it sucks that the series seems to have lost Rahal, but getting Sato, Lloyd, Power, Tags, and Romancini all full time more than makes up for losing Carpenter, Duno, and Bobby D.
Meanwhile, I decided not to call you out on reneging on your promise to post 1,000 times and leave Trackforum because, well, I didn't think you'd care enough to want to engage about this. In the end, it didn't matter; you were banned anyhow. Figure that; Me, the guy who thinks that radical change is necessary for survival still has a profile on the most pro-ICS website around, and you, the guy who supposedly loves the current product and thinks only minor tweaks are needed, were sent packing. Says something about your approach, doesn't it?
There's nothing we can do to affect change. You should know that as well as any of us. You know what? Instead of worrying about where the 500 will be in 5 years and what I can do to change it, I've decided to get myself a good seat for the apocalypse. Best case scenario is that something/someone comes along, changes the equation, and the sport is saved. Worst case scenario; I'll at least be comfortable while I watch GP3-USA.
I got banned at TrackForum for arguing with an asshole claiming to be an engineer, after I proved him wrong. And here you are, trumpeting the IRL after writing this :
ReplyDeleteSeptember 7, 2009
Watching the IRL go down the tubes
Posted by virtualbalboa
"In short, the IRL looks to be in absolute chaos at the moment, and probably in the death throes. I can see one more year."
______________________________________________
As for what I have been doing, your mischaracterizations reveal that your reading comprehension is just as inconsistant as your writing. If you think all the posts I put up here were written by a "...guy who supposedly loves the current product and thinks only minor tweaks are needed..", then you can't read, or can't be bothered.
As for affecting change, I will once again truthfully state that I haven't accomplished a damn thing. Learned some things along the way, and I'd be real interested to read all your great ideas that justify the statement,
"There's nothing we can do to affect change".
Where's the evidence of your efforts?
Andy
You know what? I still question the series viability past this year, car count or not. I question its viability for July 2010, to be totally honest based on what I've seen and heard. But you know what? I can't do anything about that. Whether or not there's a series in 2011 or 2012 is entirely dependent on the hellarich guys who win all the races and IRL management to come to an agreement.
ReplyDeleteYou were banned because, as many people often pointed out to you to no avail, because you spoke down to every member on the site. And what of the 1000 post promise, Andy? I guess the overarching need to inform the unwashed masses overpowered that.
You keep asking what the rest of us are doing; Well, Andy, I'll keep answering this the same way. Your method of affecting change has been fruitless. Posting on the internet seems to have done very little too, I will admit, but I'm not so deluded as to believe that someone at Indycar management is going to look at any of our posts and go, "Oh shit! Of course!" and then alter the direction of the sport.
As I said earlier; beach chair is set up, psyched to see Sato, Power, and Wilson racing at wherever it is that the IRL actually starts this year.
Cleanupcrew repeatedly sent me notes to request I continue posting of TF, and I received no explanation for the ban. Perhaps you could explain it to me, since you seem quite familiar with the details. So I use another screen name now, big freaking deal.
ReplyDeleteI post here, there and everywhere because many people like you claim to be experts. I want experts to read what I write, and call me an asshole if my facts or logic are inaccurate so I can learn something.
So what happens? This forum is a good example, I post reams of factual information and conclusions derived from it, and all I draw is ankle bites from dogs like you.
The amount of private correspondance I have received from others has been constructive, since they realize I have a clue and are willing to talk to me. That still has not prompted any effective change to my knowledge.
Not here, though. You are the second in this group of what, six people, who has gone from ridiculing my positions to showing some semblance of accepting them.
That's not because what I write matters here. It's because what you write doesn't.
Andy
No, it is because your behavior is inappropriate. Many individuals here are of advanced educations and have considerable wealth of knowledge pertaining to business, engineering, marketing, and finance. You seem to think that others know nothing. You would be well advised as to re-think your perspective on how you present what you believe is the "answer to the IRL problems". I can assure you the gentlemen who set up this site is a considerably informed, well-educated and highly knowledgeable individual with considerable experience around the Indy Car community. Same for others on this site. I come here to enjoy the thought process and have made several good friends as well as networking for the future. I enjoy all that post regardless of whether I agree or diagree with all they or I present. I look forward to Roggespierre's return. He stated to me that he was taking some personally time until the IRL season starts. I hope he is well rested and of good spirits. Until then, we wait......
ReplyDeleteI didn't come here hurling insults as an introduction, I reacted to the ones I received. You are an example of one who espouses grand ideals, and offers no constructive solutions.
ReplyDeleteThis forum was based solely on negativity until I challenged its author to find answers to the propblems he constantly harped on. Go back and read it for yourself.
That proved to be too difficult a task to keep the attention of "...individuals here [who] are of advanced educations and have considerable wealth of knowledge pertaining to business, engineering, marketing, and finance."
I ask you to talk about racing engines, you serve up ankle bites.
Andy
I do not wish to talk about racing engines.I prefer the forum that was presented. The business of Indy Car racing. The only negativity of this forum is YOU!! Until you came, we had lively, non-combative conversations that promoted thought. I find that most individuals here can offer intellegent, fresh perspectives without harshness. You seem to find this problems wherever you go. We simply have a different opinion than you. Good or bad, that is simply what it is....opinion. So, say whatever you will but I prefer the gentlemen that choose words carefully and constructfully.
ReplyDeleteThis was a backslappers club for critics, who saw the cost of the equipment as one of the major obstacles to the business plan. Wrong focus, I proved that to my own satisfaction. None of the gentlemen here will acknowledge that conclusion. Try asking Keith Wiggins about it.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your company.
Andy
I will !!! Thank you! Mr Wiggins has his own opinion also!! We all do!! He is entitled to his as I am mine.
ReplyDeleteThis forum is a good example, I post reams of factual information and conclusions derived from it, and all I draw is ankle bites from dogs like you.
ReplyDeleteWe've gone through this before. The fact that you consider people who don't adhere to your vision of what Indycar should be (a slightly tinkered with version of the current product) to be "anklebiters" capable of providing no substance is the issue here. There are things that are substantiative to the discussion of the IICS future that aren't physical parts of the car, believe it or not.
Yes, for example: getting "Sato, Lloyd, Power, Tags, and Romancini all full time" for an American racing series, while at the same time deserving Americans are left in the cold, is NOT a positive indication of business dynamics.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I rather enjoyed watching Lloyd and Power last year (and if Vitor Meira ever wins I'll be quite thrilled), but a series that looks like a foreign pursuit - increasingly foreign, too - has NO shot at captivating the mainstream USA.
Unless magic happens, and the Andretti team figures out how to put the few remaining American drivers into victory circle, several times, especially Danica....these are the potential tipping points I dream about, but they involve hanging your hat squarely on luck...
ReplyDeleteExcellent point BC!!! Even with new cars and a new rules package it makes it tough when the names require a foreign dialect to pronounce. Can you say Foyt or Unser???
ReplyDeleteAndy: For a person who is supposedly intelligent and is capable of putting a string of words together in a coherent fashion, you seem incapable of grasping the whole picture. What the majority of the posters in this "forum" want is to see IndyCar and the 500 thrive and survive well into the future. What you have proposed for the series is only a short term solution. Do we need an improved racing product? Hell Yes!. Do we need new ideas about how to best reduce the cost of competition for the teams? Absolutely! Do we need transparency and openness in the rules package? You better believe it. The central question still remains: "How do we get from here to there?" Roggespierre and the others on here are trying to come up with an answer to that question. I personally believe that before we can propose answers to the question we must determine what it is we want IndyCar to be. This means a statement of vision, a statement of goals, a statement of what the series is trying to provide for it's ultimate customer, the fan, and the indirectly the advertiser. To accomplish this will likely require a paradigm shift in the way we look at the whole package. The rules, the cars, the financial underpinnings, and the culture of the management. We've already had one paradigm shift in the cars with the DeltaWing project. I feel strongly that we need paradigm shifts in the other areas. Will we get them? I don't know. As Oldwrench says: "We shall see."
ReplyDelete"How do we get from here to there?"
ReplyDelete"There" is 2012, with engine regulations that allow open sourcing from independant builders. "There" is a domestically produced chassis with enough latitude in the regulations to erase the "spec" configuration by allowing alternate mechanical and aero components. And alternate constructors as economics permit.
"There" is a recipe for more competition variables, and a product good enough to retain the interest of the viewers you hope to attract through effective promotion.
So what I already presented is a strategy to get from "here to there", and do so in a manner that low budget teams can best cope with.
Then in 2012, proposed regulations which encourage alternate fuel powerplants for 2015.
If you think the Delta Wing group represents a "paradigm shift", I don't believe you have gotten past the rhetoric to examine each of their talking points.
Regardless, that is a project for the "there" of 2012. Ignoring the here and now isn't gonna get you there.
The here and now also yields strong indications that if you view the Indianapolis 500 as the pinnacle of your vision, you have some examination to do of the "paradigm" shifters. Delta Wing is not a concept vehicle, it is an autonomous organization that is mandating a course for the future.
How that reconciles with the goals of the IMS remains to be seen, and public statements by Delta Wing charter members reiterate their unilateral planning. There won't be racing at IMS if it has a trench around the perimeter.
Andy
2012 rules do not have "open source" for componets. The rules state an "approved supplier". Alternative fuel sources has not been determined as of yet. Delta wing is a concept vehicle. It has not been nor has been accepted by the ICS. It simply is an exercise to determine feasibility and market attractiveness. The prototype is being considered as we speak for testing later this year.The course change you describe has not been approved. It is a just a group of people who have the resources determining if the project is financially viable and market worthy. I like many of the ideas that "Delta Wing" represents, but can it contain the costs and produce a viable product that people will watch? That won't be answered until a prototype is actually running and the manufacturing structure is defined.It has a way to go but it is a step in the right direction. John Barnes has stated if he can run 2 cars for the 1.2- 1.6 million range for a season then he feels it is viable. The value of the series is still a "hinge point". If Mr Angstadt can raise the value of the series, then it should improve the financials and provide greater oppurtuinity for sponsorship and team participation.
ReplyDeleteThe points I made above were my own plan, not Delta's. I was told that was the purpose here, to write new plans.
ReplyDeleteOpen sourcing is not Delta's innovation. It will be perfectly adaptable to the domestic production of any chassis, so long as the manufacturer is encouraged by the sanctioning body to grant licensing. With the cost components of currency fluctuation, higher overseas labor rates and shipping removed, there is no reason why the OEM manufacturer cannot remain competitive with independant suppliers to still sell his parts.
You could even write a content rule as part of the supplier's agreement. No problem.
The Delta prototype is scheduled for an August rollout,three months after the IICS has stated that their decision will be announced. Here is the latest article, with all of the talking points highly polished and quotes from all of the Delta Wing management, save Mr. Lafontaine:
http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2010/the_way_it_is_no223.html
If you fancy Koolaid, there is some hearty drinking there for you. Note that throughout the article, the mantra of "half the price" repeated by Barnes and other Delta Wing supporters has been de-emphasized.
If you have accepted many of the technical and cost considerations on faith, I don't think you have examined them closely.
Kieth Wiggins owns HVM Racing, is a charter member and investor in Delta, and says that the cost savings will not be significant.
If you're looking for a "hinge point", that would be over a deal Mr. Angstadt has already negotiated. Izod is getting hosed, with commercials made starring drivers who don't have rides. There is no definitive answer to whether the contract has in fact been signed, and there is no clearcut guarantee that they will be the title sponsor for six years. Let's "wait and see" what the hinges look like after this year, and hope they don't open the door to leave.
And are they interested in the revolutionary design of the Delta? Izod looked at IndyCar racing, and what they saw was excitement they hoped to capture and infuse into their promotional image. They also saw the heritage of the sport, and are relying on it to sell clothing to their young and trendy demographic.
What you did't see, next to the Firestone sticker on the Delta vehicle, was one from the series sponsor. That's not what they bought into, not what they have constructed their promotional plans on, and may not be anything they wish to support in the future. They think retro is cool.
By the way, $1.2-$1.6M probably doesn't even cover the salaries and benefits for the 25 people on the Panther payroll. The Delta is quoted at $600K turnkey, that's $1.2M for your race car and spare car, and another $300K for two more spare ARE MZR-R engines. I'm guessing four total would get you through a season, if you hope you don't junk any when you wad your vehicle up. Cost containment? Not so much.
Andy
You thow at lot of information around but you fail to see the big picture. Explain to me why Penske Corporation, Penske Racing, its sponsors and its partners have not public spoke upon any of "Delta Wing" or the ICS plans?? More to it than meets the eye. If you understand strategic planning, explain how and why the remain mum???
ReplyDeleteIt was in the link to the Girdon Kirby article I posted. Here ya go:
ReplyDelete____________________________________________
Indy car racing's most successful team owner Roger Penske is a supporter of the Delta Wing project.
"I'm mostly concerned from the safety standpoint," Penske says. "Once they get that sorted out we'll see what happens. I think the right approach is to help fund it, to build a car that we can test and see its safety aspects."
Penske counsels for caution in introducing the new car.
"Honda's been a big partner and so has Dallara and we don't need a political battle with some car owners wanting a Delta Wing and other owners wanting to stay the traditional way," Penske comments. "I think if we wait a year and push it out to 2013 we can race what we have. We've had good racing and we can keep the costs down especially with the economy the way it is. Then Chip and those guys can get that car developed. Once we get it on the racetrack it's going to be real obvious. I think when that happens they'll either be a lot of support or there won't be.
"At this point I think any new innovation is positive and I think it's important that we evaluate it properly. I think we need innovation. The world is living on innovation and certainly this is an opportunity. What we want to do is evaluate it properly because a knee jerk at this time with a new car and new engines it's going to be expensive. On the other hand it might be something to take Indy car racing where it needs to be."
____________________________________________
As for remaining mum,this is the first public statement Penske has made that I know of. He is already one of the 8-10 owners who is an investor in the Delta Wing project. He is the only one who has mentioned delaying the project, and his statements were made yesterday.
Other owners have been more outspoken with their support, none more than John Barnes.
Andy
Correct and why was that?
ReplyDeleteWhat's correct, and why was what?
ReplyDeleteWhy has Penske waited so long before speeaking about "delta wing"??
ReplyDeleteWell, there isn't anything to base on answer to that question, other than my interpretation of his only public statement that you presumably just read.
ReplyDeleteSo my presumption is that he invested in the project(as has beem previously reported in the press), and he's waiting to see what happens.
And he watches the public reaction to the debut, and is a little bit less convinced about what a wonderful idea this is.
And he listens to the Delta Wing talking points, and reads the same articles you can read, and starts to conclude that this isn't going to be the great cost containment solution that was originally proposed. He knows what racing costs, and where the major line items on the budget are.
Doesn't that jive with his quote? So Penske asks everybody to cool their jets a little, see what the prototype actually looks like, costs like, races like, crashes like, and could sell like. And if the fans will like it.
In the meanwhile, that request puts the IICS at odds with announcing their spec in May, and holds the four real race car manufacturers in limbo until Mr. Penske, and the IICS, fully debate the Delta Wing vehicle and all of its concepts.
Which means three full seasons of staid competition and sinking revenues, since nobody cares about the "here and now" of improving the existing equipment.
By the way, Honda's committment ends after 2011. If Penske wants to wait three years for new equipment, he had better start talking to Honda about whether they, or Ilmor (a Penske owned company) are going to supply the engines for 2012.
The only good positive about Penske's statement is that he is not banging his cup agains imaginary bars like Mr. Barnes is doing. Penske's lukewarm statement might slow the momentum that the ownership group of charter members is hoping to generate.
But if the IICS listens to him, the trap is set for a third year of racing that turns fans away in droves. No matter how much you spend to promote it. It's Product #1, Promotion #2, and that's consistant with every word I have ever written in these blank columns and any other I can find.
Andy
Have you every heard of the stategic planning concept called "game theory"? On the surface, I agree with your observations, but there is more going on here that meets the eye. I will reserve my opinion until a later date but I do know a "power play" is going to be made here!!
ReplyDeleteIt's already been made, it's a fait accompli.
ReplyDeleteThe questions are how IICS will respond, and how far the Delta Wing is willing to try to push their pointy little object and the points behind it.
Game theory is for the power brokers and the rich guys, and I will never understand their world. I can only read the tea leaves they dump for public consumption, and wonder what in hell their real motivation is. 'Cause it sure isn't logic , or the best interest of the sport.
For all I know, maybe Barnes is on a rant because he wants to screw Dallara. He just bought two new chassis: perhaps he didn't get the deal he felt he should, and he's busy working on getting his money's worth. Johnny, bang your cup.
Penske might be thinking he doesn't need to work that hard, so three years and done works just as well for him than taking a leadership role in a new Series. So who knows?
The point is, everyone is looking at the next two years, or now even three, as time they can afford to waste. I say they don't have one.
Andy
Wrong!!! You need to spend less time in Racer magazine and more time reading business journals. There is more going on than you and most people fail to realize.
ReplyDeleteOk, thanks for your insightful analysis.
ReplyDeleteAndy
The bottom line is that the financials don't mesh, and the public doesn't care enough to watch it.
ReplyDeleteThe solution for the first is to either put more money on the table, or allow competitors to race competitively within their means for less money. For the series, that means getting completely out of the car and engine business.
You're a "millionaire sportsman" looking into ICS racing, maybe just the "500." Where do you start? Entry into the game is prohibitive for the "casual" investor. This isn't the day of giving A.J. Watson $50,000 to go racing, as Bob Wilke did in 1958 - and that was creating a top-flight team that won the 500 twice in four years.
You see ICS in its current shape - are you going to invest in that? Fast forward a few years, and now the series has its new car, likely the one largely the creation of the two currently best financed and most successful teams - are you going to invest in that? I doubt it.
Here's something else: "Dan Wheldon hasn't passed up many opportunities during the off-season to hone his road racing skills through karting competition. This week, he's competing on the half-mile Sprint track during Daytona KartWeek By Cometic Gasket."
Kart racing used to be a gag publicity picture. Guys like Ward, Foyt and Jones would each get on one with helmet and goggles, and put a furious face on for the photogs. "Real racers" drove off-season in auto races, from sprints and midgets to sportscars...karts were for kids...now they're for 500 champions. Meanwhile, Danica has a NASCAR ride, Danny.
The bottom line is that the competition does not produce enough excitement, so the public doesn't care enough to watch it. That's the reason the financials don't mesh.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is to reduce the restrictions in the regulations, and do in a manner which puts more emphasis on car control. Go back about 80 posts and you can read one possible way to do it. No one here made single comment about the specifics, nor has an engineer told me the plan was impractical or imprudent.
Millionaire sportsman will have no problem fielding a car for the 500, they throw down $.5M and rent a car to run their driver. The problem is that he can't win it, since the best his driver can do is lap the place flat for 500 miles and watch the entrants with the biggest R&D budgets go past him a few times.
Andy
One can assume it's a lack of excitement - I'm not sure what "excitement" entails. Nonetheless, I'm not at all convinced the answer lies solely in the equipment rules. The series misses on several counts, from a lack of purpose (ISC Champion versus Natinoal Champion, for example) to most teams going oh-for-the-season.
ReplyDeleteMillionaire sportsmen, by definition, are there to compete to win, not appear and collect less than invested. Can't do it, so won't do it - not for the 500, not for the season.
Really. So why are Townsend Bell and Bertrand Baguette entered in the 500, and Davey Hamilton put together a deal to run it? Or John Andetti and Robby Gordon (among others) talking about running one-off Indy deals?
ReplyDelete"Excitement" entails an unpredictable result to the competition. That exists today in IndyCar road racing, when Wilson or Conway can get on the podium. They can rely on their skill to drive them there.
Not so on oval tracks, where "...the answer lies solely in the equipment rules". The outcome will often be less than exciting, when 24 drivers can lap flat and the determining factors will be engineering and luck.
Andy
Let's see - as I understand it, Baguette has nothing definite anywhere at the moment and will soon find himself hanging out in paddocks worldwide looking for work. Bell's ride is sponsored by Herbalife, which will pay the sponsorship freight for the one race from which it gets fair exposure ROI. For Andretti and Gordon, speculation is cheap - it takes money to buy whiskey. This is not the foundation of a healthy series, which is supposedly the sustainable goal here. It's hardly sign of a healthy 500, either.
ReplyDeleteIf excitement is seeing at which event a weak sister team catches a break to reach a podium...yeah, ICS has it in spades...if only the non-ticket buying or non-viewing public would catch on to that thrilling concept.
Your last paragraph is exactly why the competitive balance has to be altered with regulation changes, particularly as it applies to the Speedway and other oval races.
ReplyDeleteThe examples I cited of road racing results has zero to with "a weak sister team catches a break to reach a podium". Wilson outqualified and outraced the field, Conway sliced through it to third from 14th.
Your first paragraph tries to justify the inaccurate statements you made in the post that precedes it. There will be more than 33 attempting to qualify at Indy, likely closer to 40. This statement is untrue, for this year and for every year in the past:
"Can't do it, so won't do it - not for the 500, not for the season".
Andy
In each mοdality sometіmeѕ yοu
ReplyDeletenew planets. As а Summation, the lеgal age of online televіsіon games Capturе а bug аnd put it іn а
lіght uр сontаіner. On the Contraгy, it can be said thatcan in reality tо buy the cοst
іs reasonable.
Also vіsit my page - http://mozaicblack.com/motion/read_blog/13393/free-mmo-s--online-games-and-rpg-s-you-don't-have-to-pay-for
It manifеstly has ѕоft to explanations οf ԁifferеnt skіlls, and At that plaсe аrе evеn linkѕ for pгacticing
ReplyDeletevocabulary in other languages! Squids baѕeless West iѕ ѕсheduled to aѕіdе,
I Suppose we all Spiel for fun. In that
resρeсt aгe in all likelihooԁ millions οf
ωeb-pаges hosting such major communication mediums out
Therе today, viz. computers and tv set.
Take a loοk at my web site - game
Zoo baron 2: Extіnct Anіmals I Conceіѵe pages,online gаmeѕand aсtivіtу іdeas for the moνing-pісtuгe show Finԁing Nemo released іn 2003.
ReplyDeleteHоwever, plаying Dіgimon Αdvеnture onlinе games Like
аnу other games aгe playedas a analog story.
my websіte; game