2013 or Bust

[mountainstar]

http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page_...?content=36807

Well everyone seemed to think I was talking out my behind about comments tony george made back in december at a sports business forum in regards to canning the irl if it wasn't profitable by 2013. But the above article confirms it quoting tony george.

I have a hard time believing they'll make it with .15 tv ratings and seats that would be empty except for marlboro and honda buying free tickets. I'm not seeing anything visionary or revolutionary that is going to drive interest back.

The song "The Final Countdown" is playing in my head.

[johntt]

Looks like its 1979 all over again. I'll start putting my White Paper together.

[JagtechOhio]

Point one, thanks for posting the link.

Point two, if you read through the comments, there's one by a woman who claims to have been at the December meeting and states that Mr. George's remark was off the cuff.

So then if you look back through the article, you can see that it was written with interviews conducted to support that remark and with no additional detail from George. I don't think it's anything more than supposition, regardless of whether the series can achieve fianacial viability or not.

[climb]

keep your dream alive ms, in the long term we're all dead

[jonm2]

DOOOOMED etc


In the mean time, I'm looking forward to the Indy 500 And nothing typed on a forum will stop me from enjoying one the best races in the world.

[bjohnsonsmith]

If the IRL is pulled because of financial difficulties due to lack of spectator attendance and rather iffy tv coverage, are these factors not symptomatic of the homogenous nature of the series. The format of the IRL was to keep costs down but the consequence is the series is rather dull and doesn't have much variety, except for the race-tracks themselves and some great drivers. C.A.R.T in its hay day had a lot to offer: a variety of race-tracks national and international, a variety of drivers national and international and a variety of engine and car manufacturers, mostly international. If you look at NASCAR, a lot of its appeal is the variety of manufacturers. Car owners, like any other branch of society have their favourites and in this case it's brand of car. At a NASCAR race you will have fans who prefer Ford over Chevrolet for an example and that sort of fan loyalty is good for the sport. Look at F1 and the fan loyalty Ferrari generate. If the IRL is going to survive it needs to encourage not just engine manufacturers, which I know is on the cards but at least one alternative car manufacturer. However, with the current economic crisis it will be hard.

[mountainstar]

Well the irl has been romancing the Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche group for a while and no bite so far. I know definitely Porsche was not interested and such as publicly stated.

There were others but interest was lukewarm to not interested.

The boss of TRD expressed his wishes to the irl head honchos and was rebuffed.

Even if VW comes on board you might have Honda exiting at the same time.

[bjohnsonsmith]

With the merger of Porsche and VW it could very well be in their interest as North America is a huge market for them. Somehow I don't think Honda will quit just like that. They have left F1, thus saving themselves a lot money and again North America is huge market for them as well. Maybe we might see them dukeing it out and that could provide some of the variety that the IRL needs.

[madman16]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

at least one alternative car manufacturer.

How many people do you know that drive a Dallara????

Sorry, cheap shot. I get your point and agree with you it's just i don't see the chassis manufacturer as important as the engine manufacturers. Lola, reynard, penske etc would be nice but none of those are driven by you or me....are they?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by madman16

How many people do you know that drive a Dallara????

Sorry, cheap shot. I get your point and agree with you it's just i don't see the chassis manufacturer as important as the engine manufacturers. Lola, reynard, penske etc would be nice but none of those are driven by you or me....are they?

Eh? Cheap shot I think not. All I was pointing out is that there is brand loyalty and that is part of what makes NASCAR attractive to NASCAR race car fans. You buy a Chevy or a Ford you are getting the car, the package, engine, the lot. I think you missed my point.

[madman16]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Eh? Cheap shot I think not. All I was pointing out is that there is brand loyalty and that is part of what makes NASCAR attractive to NASCAR race car fans. You buy a Chevy or a Ford you are getting the car, the package, engine, the lot. I think you missed my point.

I got your point, i'm pretty sure i even said that i agreed with you. My point was that i think in the short term engine manufacturers were more important than chassis developers. Honda vs VW vs Toyota whatever that's all

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

With the merger of Porsche and VW it could very well be in their interest as North America is a huge market for them. Somehow I don't think Honda will quit just like that. They have left F1, thus saving themselves a lot money and again North America is huge market for them as well. Maybe we might see them dukeing it out and that could provide some of the variety that the IRL needs.

I had heard honda was giving consideration to what they would be doing in the future and whether or not that would include indycar.

Porsche/indycar that doesn't match up. VW as I said the irl has been romancing for a year now. VW does have a new plant coming online here in the USA so it's always a possibility they could seek more involvement in motorsport.

But I'd guess they'd have to weigh the cost/benefit ratio of things like the TDI Jetta Cup they are running compared to the cost/benefit ratio of indycar when indycar just pulled a .15 tv rating on versus. The TDI Cup races on Speed probably pulled a better number than that.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

I'm not seeing anything visionary or revolutionary that is going to drive interest back.

Ye of little faith.

-Decrease the costs of the car.
-Get rid of all carbonfiber except for safety components.
-You want to build your own car, fine. But any person that shows up with the money to buy it you must sell to. No doing what Carl Haas did in the '80s with Lola where he picked and chose his competition.
-A standard engine formula that your normal engine builder like Gaerte or Hendrick could build, not something superexotic like a tiny 1.8-liter turbo.
-Reduce downforce, increase engine horsepower.
-Car and team costs are kept in line with what purse money looks like. There's no point on spending $250k for a team to race at Long Beach if they're looking at a paycheck from the Long Beach promoter of $40k.
-Don't care about Formula 1 or Europe.
-No flyaway races. They're completely unaffordable unless full costs for everyone are going to be covered by the race promoter.

Porsche/indycar that doesn't match up.

It did in the late '80s. Teo Fabi was one of the drivers and they were sponsored by Foster's. Roger Penske kicked them out.

VW does have a new plant coming online here in the USA so it's always a possibility they could seek more involvement in motorsport.

I don't think that has anything to deal with it. They've been running the Audi R8s here from 2001 to 2008.

[johntt]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Ye of little faith.

-Decrease the costs of the car.
-Get rid of all carbonfiber except for safety components.
-You want to build your own car, fine. But any person that shows up with the money to buy it you must sell to. No doing what Carl Haas did in the '80s with Lola where he picked and chose his competition.
-A standard engine formula that your normal engine builder like Gaerte or Hendrick could build, not something superexotic like a tiny 1.8-liter turbo.
-Reduce downforce, increase engine horsepower.
-Car and team costs are kept in line with what purse money looks like. There's no point on spending $250k for a team to race at Long Beach if they're looking at a paycheck from the Long Beach promoter of $40k.
-Don't care about Formula 1 or Europe.
-No flyaway races. They're completely unaffordable unless full costs for everyone are going to be covered by the race promoter.

Yeeaahhh! Lets go back to the USAC years! .

If you want to crash an open wheel car thats not made out of carbon fibre into a safer barrier be my guest. I sure as hell don't want to.

Standard engine formula? No thanks. Indy was about innovation, technology and technical diversity not about big basic engines. If i wanted to watch that i'll watch Nascar, which i do

PS: I like the idea of Power > Downforce. Flyaway races can be good if done right.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Ye of little faith.

It did in the late '80s. Teo Fabi was one of the drivers and they were sponsored by Foster's. Roger Penske kicked them out.

I don't think that has anything to deal with it. They've been running the Audi R8s here from 2001 to 2008.

Ye of little faith whilest tony george in charge.

Understood about the Audi program. But I was talking about the VW brand and as I said there is a possibility they could seek more involvement in motorsport in the USA.

I know what Porsche's motorsport philosophy is and that doesn't apply to indycar.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by johntt

Yeeaahhh! Lets go back to the USAC years! .

Well, the USAC years were responsible for making Indycars #1 in this country and the "great CART period" that everyone thinks they remembered was largely a result of the USAC framework, with some help from some owners that left Can-Am and IMSA in the early '80s.

If you want to crash an open wheel car thats not made out of carbon fibre into a safer barrier be my guest.

I'd be more than happy too and I'm willing to bet money on it. I've co-designed a racecar capable of reaching high speeds with the right engine that has a functioning version sitting in a garage in Florida that is currently offered for sale with no carbonfiber and it's safe for a driver when he or she crashes.

Standard engine formula? No thanks. Indy was about innovation, technology and technical diversity not about big basic engines.

If you watch the current USAC any, which is what my statement was partially based on if you read the point and knew one of the engine builders I listed, you'd know that their current engine lineup has more technical diversity than NASCAR, Indycar, the old ChampCar, and F1.

Flyaway races can be good if done right.

"Done right" for say Australia would be covering all teams' costs to fly out there. That's what? About $200k purse per car just to break even? So for a 24-car field that's a purse minimum of $4.8 million, about 40% of the purse at Indianapolis. Everyone said "what a great event Surfers Paradise was", the only person in the entire series that Surfers Paradise the event benefited last year was Craig Gore. It didn't benefit Power any, no Aussie company gave him any money to run this year.

mountainstar: I know what Porsche's motorsport philosophy is and that doesn't apply to indycar.

Ah, you work for Porsche then?

"Winnie the Pooh's cousin", that has more inside knowledge to the sport than yourself, disagrees.

[Flyin Ryan]

Passing on. Some good evolutionary design by a fan.

Here he explains his iterations of the car from a design point of view. http://danac.deviantart.com/art/Evo-...y-Car-27235593

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Ah, you work for Porsche then?

"Winnie the Pooh's cousin", that has more inside knowledge to the sport than yourself, disagrees.

Maybe I do

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Passing on. Some good evolutionary design by a fan.

Here he explains his iterations of the car from a design point of view. http://danac.deviantart.com/art/Evo-...y-Car-27235593

I read the article related to the link and it makes interesting reading. Just a couple of questions. With the driver so far back in the car and considering he/she is in the same driving position as now and considering the nose of the car is now dramatically increased in length, won't cornering be a problem, when judging the apex? In the old Roadster's of yesteryear, the driver was never that far back.

Second question, with the engine positioned as it is, how does the designer propose to deal with the cars exhaust manifold and the subsequent heat produced by it?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by johntt

Yeeaahhh! Lets go back to the USAC years! .

If you want to crash an open wheel car thats not made out of carbon fibre into a safer barrier be my guest. I sure as hell don't want to.

Standard engine formula? No thanks. Indy was about innovation, technology and technical diversity not about big basic engines. If i wanted to watch that i'll watch Nascar, which i do

PS: I like the idea of Power > Downforce. Flyaway races can be good if done right.

Basic engine has nothing to do with USAC years.
The USAC years allowed far more variety than either the the IRL, or CART.

Put the dirt tracks back on the schedule.
If you want to win the championship, you will prove that you are a complete racer, or that you are a wannabe.

[johntt]

The 'USAC years' comment was in reference to the opposition to carbon fibre construction.

What I had in mind when I made the comment about engines was in response to the idea of a standard engine, which sounded a bit much like the early years of the IRL.

And another thing, the days of the roadster at Indy, are dead and i hope they never return. The design put forward by that guy looks interesting but if he wants to bring in more driver involvement you don't need to put the engine in the front. You need 900bhp engines and 1996 CART levels of downforce. His other reasons were along the lines of "I don't want them furriners beatin' the 'muricans at Indy" i.e. typical xenophobic gomer mindset.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I read the article related to the link and it makes interesting reading. Just a couple of questions. With the driver so far back in the car and considering he/she is in the same driving position as now and considering the nose of the car is now dramatically increased in length, won't cornering be a problem, when judging the apex? In the old Roadster's of yesteryear, the driver was never that far back.

Second question, with the engine positioned as it is, how does the designer propose to deal with the cars exhaust manifold and the subsequent heat produced by it?

I don't know. Ask the designer yourself.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by johntt

The 'USAC years' comment was in reference to the opposition to carbon fibre construction.

I'm not against carbon fiber construction. I'm against its cost. How can we justify the costs of carbon fiber with the kinds of purse money the cars are getting currently? "Purse money doesn't matter, we'll just put in ride buyers who got to where they were because Daddy was rich and have an irresponsible business model where we'll spend gobs of money and not care about the revenue coming in." That is the single #1 reason why Indycar racing declined in this country in the early '90s. Anyone that has any issue with that statement, I'll be more than happy to accompany you to random race tracks across the country full of traditional racefans and we can put it up for a vote.

And another thing, the days of the roadster at Indy, are dead and i hope they never return.

Good for you, but you live in England and your opinion doesn't really matter because you're not the target audience, just like my opinion about Formula One really doesn't matter because I'm not the target audience. That's not xenophobic, it's just true. Would you listen to my opinion on British Formula 3 when I don't live there and I won't attend a race? In order for Indycar to be successful is has to appeal to Americans and Canadians first and foremost. CART had lots of support across the rest of the world. It didn't really help them much did it?

His other reasons were along the lines of "I don't want them furriners beatin' the 'muricans at Indy" i.e. typical xenophobic gomer mindset.

That's a very racist statement from yourself regarding Americans. I suggest you quit.

No one's stopping you from putting up your own time and money to build a car and start your own series. I have a friend that did that for endurance sportscar racing, he even used a car I designed for him as the logo. You're more than welcome to build a series in the image you see fit, and at the end of the day when you hold your first race, pass on to me the number of people that actually showed up to watch.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

I don't know. Ask the designer yourself.

Thanks I will. I just thought you might be able to answer my questions about this new Roadster, as you seem to be an authority on the subject.

[johntt]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

I'm not against carbon fiber construction. I'm against its cost. How can we justify the costs of carbon fiber with the kinds of purse money the cars are getting currently? "Purse money doesn't matter, we'll just put in ride buyers who got to where they were because Daddy was rich and have an irresponsible business model where we'll spend gobs of money and not care about the revenue coming in." That is the single #1 reason why Indycar racing declined in this country in the early '90s. Anyone that has any issue with that statement, I'll be more than happy to accompany you to random race tracks across the country full of traditional racefans and we can put it up for a vote.

Good for you, but you live in England and your opinion doesn't really matter because you're not the target audience, just like my opinion about Formula One really doesn't matter because I'm not the target audience. That's not xenophobic, it's just true. Would you listen to my opinion on British Formula 3 when I don't live there and I won't attend a race? In order for Indycar to be successful is has to appeal to Americans and Canadians first and foremost. CART had lots of support across the rest of the world. It didn't really help them much did it?

That's a very racist statement from yourself regarding Americans. I suggest you quit.

No one's stopping you from putting up your own time and money to build a car and start your own series. I have a friend that did that for endurance sportscar racing, he even used a car I designed for him as the logo. You're more than welcome to build a series in the image you see fit, and at the end of the day when you hold your first race, pass on to me the number of people that actually showed up to watch.

1) Indycar racing as not 'declining' in the early 1990s. May I suggest you look at this site: http://www.champcarstats.com/ and note the number of entries for the Indy 500. In 1993 there were over 60 different drivers attempting to qualify. Compare that to now.

2) Indycar had a large international appeal in the early 1990s as a result of F1 drivers considering it a challenge and worthy of participating in, unlike the shower of **** that we have now have to live with thanks to FTG.

Front engined open wheel cars have been proven to be inferior to rear engined open wheel cars. Going back to roadsters would be like getting rid of light bulbs and replacing them with candles, although candles are nice from time to time (i.e. USAC/WoO).

3) CART failed due to bad management, the product was highly sucessful. I attended the CART at Rockingham in 2001, Long Beach and Brands Hatch in 2003 (Brands was not the best track to use).

4) I never claimed that I would start my own series. And do not call me 'racist'! I have a lot more respect for America and the Americans than the average Englishman thank you very much. What I object to is the gomers who think that Indy/Indycar should be an all American all oval series. If you want that, go and watch Nascar.