The Current State of IndyCar

[Burp]

I thought the racing was excellent this year. Barber especially. But most races were worth watching. Texas stands out as pretty dull but can't think of any others

[Peat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-MPXjQ3ms

Miller interviews Walker

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

From a purely racing point of view, I thought it was a good season, with excellent racing; much better than F1. The crisis though, is the same old combination of low viewing figures, low crowd attendance but this seems to be getting a little better, availability of race venues plus there is this very long off season.

TV figures rose in 2015. That's a positive

Fontana crowd was lower. Milwaukee, Pocono and Sonoma grew. What were the other so called crowd crisis?

[David A Scott]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

TV figures rose in 2015. That's a positive

Fontana crowd was lower. Milwaukee, Pocono and Sonoma grew. What were the other so called crowd crisis?

Pocono? According to the track president attendance was down from last year.

[D.R.T.]

Was basing the Pocono crowd increase from Robin Miller interview.

Track president is going to hold more weight for sure. Was this on racer?

[Mekola]

Negative things were the flyoffs of the cars at Indianapolis, Hinchcliffe injured and the demise of Justin Wilson.

Positive things were the rising star of Graham Rahal and the excellent return of JPM into the first-rate ranks.

[mountainstar]

http://www.ibj.com/articles/54452-ca...ign=2015-08-15

Could be a long winter for some.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by David A Scott

Pocono? According to the track president attendance was down from last year.

As I recall the track said they were 50/50 on a future race at all.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

As I recall the track said they were 50/50 on a future race at all.

Great stuff

[rwintle]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

http://www.ibj.com/articles/54452-ca...ign=2015-08-15

Could be a long winter for some.

Wow, that was a depressing article. Thanks for posting though, interesting read.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

http://www.ibj.com/articles/54452-ca...ign=2015-08-15

Could be a long winter for some.

They never quite gave the full details on this in Autosport but I always thought this was the reason for the lawsuit, Andretti Autosport withheld payments to Andretti Sports Marketing. The lawsuit,though has now been settled but the terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.

[TheMightyM]

Marshall Pruett has an important column out on the “11 Big Questions for IndyCar.” A teaser:

2. Budget Limitations
The Hulman George family that once poured untold millions into the Indy Racing League is now acting as a fiscally responsible unit. IndyCar no longer serves as a dumping ground for the family's fortunes, and Hulman & Company CEO Mark Miles has been tasked with making every business they own - including IndyCar - a profitable entity.
(…)
At a time when IndyCar is starving for cubic dollars to fuel its return to prominence, Miles and his team are fighting just to make the sure the series has a slight cash surplus. Barring a sudden change of heart from the family, it's not entirely clear how this income problem gets solved.

Lots more good (and depressing) stuff in there.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TheMightyM

Marshall Pruett has an important column out on the “11 Big Questions for IndyCar.” A teaser:



Lots more good (and depressing) stuff in there.

There's certainly an element of cynicism.

[wnut]

thanks BJ interesting article.

This bit really struck a nerve with me:

"It's probably too late to pull the plug on aero kits for 2016, but it might be worth considering before 2017 arrives. If it's costing an obscene amount, isn't creating new fans, and isn't improving the quality of racing, how many additional seasons of running are needed to put an end to the experiment?"

Why why why does racing always go here?

The obsession with trying to run faster and faster as well?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

thanks BJ interesting article.

This bit really struck a nerve with me:

"It's probably too late to pull the plug on aero kits for 2016, but it might be worth considering before 2017 arrives. If it's costing an obscene amount, isn't creating new fans, and isn't improving the quality of racing, how many additional seasons of running are needed to put an end to the experiment?"

Why why why does racing always go here?

The obsession with trying to run faster and faster as well?

I can't take credit for this TheMightyM posted this article.

I don't know if I completely agree with Pruett. There are always going to be issues when something new is introduced to motorsport and not enough time has been spent on testing and developing. This is initially what happened with the aero-kits. Just look at F1 and the issues Renault and now Honda are finding with their PUs.

However, in the case of IndyCar the issues with aero-kits had been pretty much sorted before the end of the season and now in the off season, there are three areas that can be further developed.

It was Chevrolet in particular who wanted to introduce aero-kits, so there was greater differentiation between the Chevy and Honda powered cars, so I don't see why more of the cost of aero-kits shouldn't be born by the engine manufacturers.

With regards to creating new fans, this was the first season with aero-kits, so it's too early to say. Next season is going to be far more telling and as for the quality of the racing, I personally thought last season was one of the best for a long time.

[TheMightyM]

The point of aero-kits isn’t really to create new fans. Or at least not directly. By helping to visually distinguish between the Chevy and Honda-powered cars, you’re (in theory) increasing the ROI to the two engine manufacturers, who also happen to be major series supporters.

Does it also help the casual fan or potential fan by making the series easier to follow? Yes, at least in theory.

[bjohnsonsmith]

An interesting article on ''IndyCar's secret manufacturer war''.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...580.1443053678

[rwintle]

Originally Posted by TheMightyM

Does it also help the casual fan or potential fan by making the series easier to follow? Yes, at least in theory.

In theory, you say...

I think everyone I know who's seen my photos or happened by while I was watching a race on TV (which is, admittedly, a small sample size) hasn't noticed even slightly that they are Chevys and Hondas. The only thing that's gotten any notice is the Honda road course (EDIT - "front") wing, because, well, you know why.

Otherwise - I don't really buy that any casual fan will notice much difference between the different body kits, at all.

[Paradise City]

I don't think anyone is bedazzled by the kits. They are still fairly ugly cars.

But Indycar did put emphasis on the body kits in respect to their marketing and if you just dump them for financial reasons you lose a little bit of prestige and you send a little bit of a signal to industry that the robustness of the series just isn't there.

I like retaining the kits because variety separates series of the first rank from the mickey-mouse junior single seater series. It's series of the first rank that have a palpable diversity, whether that's F1 or sportscars.

[Salamus]

We are talking about open wheel cars, right? Of course casuals won't be able to tell the difference between Hondas and Chevys. Same can be applied to F1. The only difference there is that people know the red cars are Ferraris, the silver cars are Mercedes, and the yellow dot with a bull is a Red Bull.

But, even casuals will know that there are manufacturers in the series running different cars, even if they look the same.

One last thing. As someone who doesn't watch F1 anymore, even I have a hard time figuring out which car is which.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Salamus

We are talking about open wheel cars, right? Of course casuals won't be able to tell the difference between Hondas and Chevys. Same can be applied to F1. The only difference there is that people know the red cars are Ferraris, the silver cars are Mercedes, and the yellow dot with a bull is a Red Bull.

But, even casuals will know that there are manufacturers in the series running different cars, even if they look the same.

One last thing. As someone who doesn't watch F1 anymore, even I have a hard time figuring out which car is which.

With the restrictions that have been imposed on F1, in order to keep costs down, F1 has pretty much become a spec series. The only real difference, in this respect between Indy and F1, is each team can build there own chassis.

Even in the CART era, cars and engines were subject to a formula and visually, the Lolas, Reynards and Swifts looked similar, though the Reynards did have a rather distinctive nose.

[Roninho]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I don't think anyone is bedazzled by the kits. They are still fairly ugly cars.

But Indycar did put emphasis on the body kits in respect to their marketing and if you just dump them for financial reasons you lose a little bit of prestige and you send a little bit of a signal to industry that the robustness of the series just isn't there.

I like retaining the kits because variety separates series of the first rank from the mickey-mouse junior single seater series. It's series of the first rank that have a palpable diversity, whether that's F1 or sportscars.

I think that says enough about the marketing intelligence of indycar. You spend money on marketing because you expect that this will attract more customers. Even if you can reach the people (which is understandably hard for indycar), i just don't see how anyone would 'buy' into the aero package as something causing them to now start watching indycar. Simply said, i don't see how this is going to attract any additional customers.

I think that engineering and chassis/engine diversity can certainly be a strong point of indycar and could be used to market indycar. But then it actually has to be real diversity and engineering prowess, and not an artificial small thing like the aero package.

To me if i wanted to market the serie i would look at a combination of:
1. Indy & speed (especially compared to nascar). I would seriously consider a campaign around indy saying 'who dares', calling out nascar drivers to come over and do the double. Make it stick out that 330mph is something that is special and is not for everyone. Make the drivers the heroes. But also make this much more visible in you tv broadcast. I really don't think that the speed of indycar on ovals gets accros on tv well.
2. Diversity in circuits & close racing/everyone can win: Airport track, street circuits, traditional road courses, small ovals, big ovals and superspeedways. If you can master that diversity in tracks you are a great driver. And combine that with 9 winners in '15 and like 18 different podium finishers.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

With the restrictions that have been imposed on F1, in order to keep costs down, F1 has pretty much become a spec series. The only real difference, in this respect between Indy and F1, is each team can build there own chassis.

Even in the CART era, cars and engines were subject to a formula and visually, the Lolas, Reynards and Swifts looked similar, though the Reynards did have a rather distinctive nose.

Neither chassis nor engine are spec parts in F1. Just because the power units use V6 turbocharged ICE, they're far from spec because there are things other than cylinders and pistons involved. I wish I could find the schematic that was comparing all four engines on thejudge13 blog, highlighting the major differences. The best cars will have the chassis and engine parts tightly coupled together, even though the engines are in theory easily transferable between cars. Of course, F1 is significantly more restrictive than WEC which has the rule "you can race whatever you want".

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Of course, F1 is significantly more restrictive than WEC which has the rule "you can race whatever you want".

"... within these several limits and enforcements imposed here"...

Well even so it (LMP1) sure has more technical freedom than anything else around.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Neither chassis nor engine are spec parts in F1. Just because the power units use V6 turbocharged ICE, they're far from spec because there are things other than cylinders and pistons involved. I wish I could find the schematic that was comparing all four engines on thejudge13 blog, highlighting the major differences. The best cars will have the chassis and engine parts tightly coupled together, even though the engines are in theory easily transferable between cars. Of course, F1 is significantly more restrictive than WEC which has the rule "you can race whatever you want".

I didn't say they were spec parts, I said F1 has pretty much become a spec series because the rules governing design are now so rigid, in order to keep costs down. There's very little that distinguishes one car from the other, apart from the livery and the way the rules for the car's nose have been interpreted. As for the engines, no they are not as specy as the previous V8 that was used, then again we're talking about both recovery technology and turbos being used and there will be a difference as to how the various engine manufacturers have incorporated both into the engine's design.

Having said that, there were major differences between the Chevy and Honda engines when the DW12 was launched. Chevy used a twin turbo while Honda a single turbo. Honda are now using a twin turbo engine, though it's not quite there compared to Chevy's, which would suggest a difference in the two designs.