Barnhart getting a Dallara kickback?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am not so sure it isn't his job. For years the Toyota/Japanese method of just in time inventory squeezed more and more out of their suppliers. After a period of time they realized that they had created a situation whereby the suppliers were on the brink of making no profit at all and thereby risked having no suppliers at all for key components.

It may not be his job to see that Dallara or anyone else makes a profit, but it IS his job to make sure he doesn't create a situation where there are NO suppliers at all. Ask a company to agree to a situation where they will be in a position to build only 5 or 6 cars a year, meet certain safety specs, submit chassis for destruction to insure that meet those specs, and cap the cost of the cars to a number you set and they will tell you to go suck eggs. Their design, tooling and setup costs can't be recouped in that scenario. We are talking carbon fiber these days, not tube frames or aluminum monocoque.

Gary

Gary, if four builders put designs out there, one or two will realize quickly they cant make money and the two best designs will survive and the companies will find away to make their money. The thing is it isn't the customer's job to make sure any business survives. I am not worried if Wendy's sells me a burger for a buck one week if I am bankrupting them or not. It isn't my concern.

[garyshell]

Gary, if four builders put designs out there, one or two will realize quickly they cant make money and the two best designs will survive and the companies will find away to make their money. The thing is it isn't the customer's job to make sure any business survives. I am not worried if Wendy's sells me a burger for a buck one week if I am bankrupting them or not. It isn't my concern.

No, it isn't your concern. But only because you can walk down the street to McDonald's. But what if Wendy's and McDonald's were the only two left, and you were their only customer (just like the scenario you propose with one customer, the IRL and two manufacturers). And you said to them I'll only buy hamburgers if they meet my safety tests for e-coli and I will only pay you $1 each and will only agree to buy 5 of them in the next month. Now what if Wendy's costs to test for e-coli and to produce 5 hamburgers was $4.95 and for Mickeys it was $5.15. So Mickeys says, we're out of the hamburger business go talk to Wendy's. Are you now going to be concerned if Wendy's can make a profit or not? You have no other source for hamburger. You sure as hell better be worried. No Wendy's, no hamburger for you.

This is a classic example of what is happening in real supply chains all over the world. For many years customers didn't concern themselves with whether or not their suppliers were profitable. But as the pool of suppliers shrunk it suddenly became an important factor to the purchasing agent/supply chain manager to know if the supplier was financially viable. When suppliers can be replaced on a whim it doesn't matter. When a supplier is considered to be a strategic partner (and I think that moniker more than applies in out chassis scenario) their viability is very much linked to the customer's viability.

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, it isn't your concern. But only because you can walk down the street to McDonald's. But what if Wendy's and McDonald's were the only two left, and you were their only customer (just like the scenario you propose with one customer, the IRL and two manufacturers). And you said to them I'll only buy hamburgers if they meet my safety tests for e-coli and I will only pay you $1 each and will only agree to buy 5 of them in the next month. Now what if Wendy's costs to test for e-coli and to produce 5 hamburgers was $4.95 and for Mickeys it was $5.15. So Mickeys says, we're out of the hamburger business go talk to Wendy's. Are you now going to be concerned if Wendy's can make a profit or not? You have no other source for hamburger. You sure as hell better be worried. No Wendy's, no hamburger for you.

This is a classic example of what is happening in real supply chains all over the world. For many years customers didn't concern themselves with whether or not their suppliers were profitable. But as the pool of suppliers shrunk it suddenly became an important factor to the purchasing agent/supply chain manager to know if the supplier was financially viable. When suppliers can be replaced on a whim it doesn't matter. When a supplier is considered to be a strategic partner (and I think that moniker more than applies in out chassis scenario) their viability is very much linked to the customer's viability.

Gary

If one chassis maker cannot make a go of it unless they have a monopoly, then write me off as an IRL fan. I will reiterate, the chassis makers will have to make the call if they can manufacture cars at what price to make a profit. IT IS NOT the job of the IRL to ensure they make money...they make the rules and the manufacturers have to put together a bid that wont bankrupt them. If the price is too high, then get out....

[indycool]

It is the job of the IRL to control costs and make sure it's a level playing field. Dan Gurney wrote a White Paper, created a stock block engine that could compete, put Rocky Moran in it and almost won Watking Glen. They kicked him off the board and emasculated his engine because they were heavily invested in Cosworths. Roger Penske controlled the Ilmor, which became the engine of choice, and doled them out for brokered board votes by the teaspoon. It was terribly ill-advised that TG formed a race team after his organization started life as the modicum of integrity. If Ganassi and Bowlby are in cahoots, we have the same thing and I don't want that. So, while some blame Barnhart, he knows where the bear did it in the woods and so far, he has maintained a level playing field rather well.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It is the job of the IRL to control costs and make sure it's a level playing field. Dan Gurney wrote a White Paper, created a stock block engine that could compete, put Rocky Moran in it and almost won Watking Glen. They kicked him off the board and emasculated his engine because they were heavily invested in Cosworths. Roger Penske controlled the Ilmor, which became the engine of choice, and doled them out for brokered board votes by the teaspoon. It was terribly ill-advised that TG formed a race team after his organization started life as the modicum of integrity. If Ganassi and Bowlby are in cahoots, we have the same thing and I don't want that. So, while some blame Barnhart, he knows where the bear did it in the woods and so far, he has maintained a level playing field rather well.

IC...at WHAT point is it Barnhart's job to ensure a chassis manufacturer makes a go of it? At some point....we have to either allow this series to be what it once was, an open marketplace, or we go to a spec series. If we are going to a spec series, then the product on the track better produce or this deal is as dead as a doornail. I wont watch another formula if it is a spec series with dull racing. I have that now and have pretty much lost a lot of hope...

[indycool]

Dull racing, Mark? Hornish's win at Indy was dull? Texas is dull?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dull racing, Mark? Hornish's win at Indy was dull? Texas is dull?

IC, I watched Richmond and Iowa. DULL. Indy this year had little passing, and god knows I love Indy, but yes, I am finding the IRL racing on a lot of tracks to be DULL.

Everyone is running the same package, there is no room for innovation so the teams who can refine that car to the finest edge run up front and cant pass each other. There are some events that were entertaining for bursts, but the last year so has been so so.

Riddle me this IC. If the racing is so darn exciting, where in the h e double hockey sticks are the fans and viewers on TV? This series needs to do something radically different because that status quo isn't working.

[indycool]

Mark, I'll concede that last year wasn't as good as the year before. don't think any sport can produce a cliffhanger every time. As far as ratings go, it was tobe expected. $$$$ again. Hang millions in front of the big networks and they;ll snarf 'em up. That doesn't work financially. There is no magic wand. IZOD as a sponsor will help. The fact Versus is paying will help. But, between the sanctioning body and teams, there are huge dollars involved, which play a part in the decision-making. A big part.

[SarahFan]

As far as ratings go, it was tobe expected. .

so what are your expectations this year?

[SarahFan]

This series needs to do something radically different because that status quo isn't working.

lets roll out 35 delta wings (2 extra for some 'bumping')...........