Keep you ears and eyes open.... [Archive]

Chris R

23rd June 2008, 22:03

I think that's a surprisingly low number of "interested" manufacturers. Only 6 car companies (including the one currently involved) want to hear about what the future of Indycar is. That being said, if we get 3 manufacturers, then great. Even better if one is American, one Japanese, and one European.

There really aren't that many more manufacturers out there - We all know Chrysler is both historically dis-interested and nearly broke. The only potential ones off the list by name are Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota and Subaru. Most other brands fall under one of these manufacturers and it is not likely specialty people such a Porsche & Ferrari or non US brands such a Fiat or Renault have any interest....

Realistically, a good match/mix would be one Japanese/Asian manufacturer, one US manufacturer and one Euro manufacturer and this list provides for that possibility.

DrDomm

23rd June 2008, 22:09

There really aren't that many more manufacturers out there - We all know Chrysler is both historically dis-interested and nearly broke. The only potential ones off the list by name are Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota and Subaru. Most other brands fall under one of these manufacturers and it is not likely specialty people such a Porsche & Ferrari or non US brands such a Fiat or Renault have any interest....

Realistically, a good match/mix would be one Japanese/Asian manufacturer, one US manufacturer and one Euro manufacturer and this list provides for that possibility.

Mercedes would be nice, as would Porsche or Ferrari. Aside from those, Nissan, Toyota and Subaru would be reasonable. Supposedly, Hyundai wanted to get into racing a few years back. Should we consider Mazda as part of Ford? VW with Audi? Saab with GM?

I guess I just expected a few more, like 10.

Wilf

23rd June 2008, 22:37

* By Dave Lewandowski
* indycar.com 5/23/2008

Innovation and technology have been hallmarks of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway for 99 years, and have been carried on by the Indy Racing League since its 1994 inception.

Continuing to look to its future, the sanctioning body will host an IndyCar Automotive Manufacturers Roundtable in late June for senior automotive executives with the goal of an agreement on the next generation engine technological platform. Turbo-charged? Hydrogen? Six cylinders or eight?

"From a league standpoint, we're open-minded," said Brian Barnhart, president of competition and operations for the Indy Racing League. "Our goal is to create a relevant engine platform that is strategically aligned with major automotive manufacturers' existing and future programs and initiatives."

The series has targeted introduction of new specifications for the 2011 season -- the 100th anniversary of the first Indianapolis 500 - with a desire for multiple automobile manufacturer participation. Currently, Honda Performance Development (Honda Indy V8) is the series' sole provider.

"Unification and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway centennials provide us with an historic opportunity to showcase the innovative spirit of IndyCar Series racing," said Tony George, founder and CEO of the Indy Racing League. "The Indy 500 has a rich history of speed, innovation and technology, and the second century of IndyCar Series racing must continue to further that heritage.

"Now is the time to look to the future. We are committed to creating strong partnership value and opportunities for our teams by looking at relevant technology that will entice manufacturers to participate within a cost-conscious formula."

Honda Performance Development announced May 23 that it is committed to supply engines to the IndyCar Series through at least 2013, and Firestone has been the series' longtime sole tire supplier. Bringing together an engine platform and chassis for 2011 provides ample time for development.

"Form follows function with regard to (the chassis update)," Barnhart said. "It will be driven a little bit by the industry round table. Depending on what platform that's chosen will dictate various aspects of that chassis. We certainly have appreciated what the College of Creative Studies and the Art School College of Design projects have presented, and we like a lot of those concepts and may be able to incorporate some of those.

"But the next step is determining what the engine platform's going to be. At this point, I think we're more inclined from a league standpoint to stick with a single-supply chassis. I really like the aspects of an exclusive supply on the tires and an exclusive supply on the chassis. Exclusive supply on chassis and tires is the best way of controlling performance, speed, costs and safety."

The IndyCar Series has retained RWB of Torrance, Calif., to develop the round table and the company's Neil Ressler to facilitate discussions.

"They will help us in terms of reaching out and really securing what we hope will be almost 100 percent attendance," said Terry Angstadt, president of the Indy Racing League's commercial division. "It really is to update and introduce -- to get people thinking about our business. We'll talk about a little bit on where we think the (IndyCar) Series is going from a growth and development standpoint. We think that it is very consistent with the technology and innovation platform of not only the IndyCar Series but the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

"It is a great next step in the development of our racing business."

Rex Monaco

23rd June 2008, 22:55

"Unification and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway centennials provide us with an historic opportunity to showcase the innovative spirit of IndyCar Series racing," said Tony George, founder and CEO of the Indy Racing League.

This speaks huge volumes.

They are now willing to listen because the series is unified, and the marketing hype around a centennial might actually justify the cost of entering this now tarnished event.

Rex Monaco

23rd June 2008, 22:58

"They will help us in terms of reaching out and really securing what we hope will be almost 100 percent attendance," said Terry Angstadt, president of the Indy Racing League's commercial division.

This also speaks huge volumes.

Even the short list of manufacturers mentioned by the op are not banging down their door to get into this series.

Rex Monaco

23rd June 2008, 23:06

I would think it is to hear what the IRL's ideas are and hear the ideas of the manufacturers on what they would be willing to invest in.

"It really is to update and introduce -- to get people thinking about our business.

"Hi, maybe you've heard about our race. It's the Indianapolis 500. We've been around almost 100 years. It used to be a very special event, with lots of hype and plenty of competition. But unfortunatley, due to some misguided decisions, we now have to reintroduce ourselves to you the manufacturers and then to the general public."

Wilf

23rd June 2008, 23:30

"Hi, maybe you've heard about our race. It's the Indianapolis 500. We've been around almost 100 years. It used to be a very special event, with lots of hype and plenty of competition. But unfortunatley, due to some misguided decisions, we now have to reintroduce ourselves to you the manufacturers and then to the general public."

It must have really been depresing seeing all those people go to the race this year not to mention all the people, however few, who watched it on TV.

There is no doubt, CART has the answer. Look at the attendance at their races this year. Tony should have a yard sale at 16th and Georgetown and stick to making baking soda. I'm sure he would consider a man of your talent and expertise for a position as consultant.

gofastandwynn

24th June 2008, 04:18

Update

INDYCAR: Indy to Hold Engine Manufacturers’ Summit
Written by: Robin Miller
06/23/2008 - 04:54 PM
Indianapolis, Ind.

As many as nine engine manufacturers and builders will gather Tuesday at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway for a round table discussion about the future of power at the Indianapolis 500.

Representatives from Audi, BMW, Mazda, General Motors and Honda are expected to attend along with Ilmor and Cosworth.

The Speedway hired Neil Ressler, former technical boss for all of Ford Motor Company, to use his worldwide contacts and put this round table together. It will be closed to the media but a teleconference may be held Wednesday.

"We invited everyone that made sense with the purpose of asking them what they are looking at in the future," said Fred Nation, IMS executive vice president of communications.

"Maybe we'll be able to arrive at a consensus to move forward and be aligned with more than one manufacturer."

Since 2006, Honda has supplied every engine for the Indy Racing League and its contract was recently extended through 2013. General Motors powered most of the IRL winners from 1997-2002 before dropping out after 2003 while Nissan also competed with limited success during that period and left at the end of 2002.

Toyota joined the IRL in 2002, then captured the championship in 2003 before pulling out following the 2005 season.

Ilmor, a longtime player in open wheel that also helped Honda enter the IRL, still builds IRL engines and Cosworth had a major presence in CART for 25 years and was the lone source of power for Champ Car from 2003-2007 before it went out of business.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 07:35

It must have really been depresing seeing all those people go to the race this year not to mention all the people, however few, who watched it on TV.

It must have been really exciting watching all those Hondas compete against each other. It was almost like the old days.

Well, accept that no time during it's near 100 year history was it ever a spec series race.

Thank God for the Japanese! They single enginely saved American Open Wheeled Racing.

electron

24th June 2008, 09:07

a strong interest in automakers will generate when there is a technical formula that drives to the future and no series elsewhere in the world generates or is willing to support.
Then and only then the Makes will jump in. But it has to be soemthing that every manufacturer thinks he can't be without. (say diesel, hybrid or electric or even hydrogen or a mix of all this...)

just badging some V8 blocks won't pull anones interest (let alone money) and that goes if it has a blower attached to it or if it just sucks...
These times are gone.

If the technical innovation comes, the Makes will want the control since they want to expand the technical horizon for themselves. And it will be expensive with all risks attached to it.

If we go by a lowtech, and low budget, formula (and again, Turbo or not, I mean state of the art from the shelf engines) we won't see much involvement from makes. Maybe the tuners build the engines and we see two badges, that would be it.

It comes down to if there is one technical formula that everybody wants to do. I can't see it now but who knows what the guys meeting there have in their papers.

gofastandwynn

24th June 2008, 09:24

Wilf

24th June 2008, 13:38

It must have been really exciting watching all those Hondas compete against each other. It was almost like the old days.

Well, accept that no time during it's near 100 year history was it ever a spec series race.

Thank God for the Japanese! They single enginely saved American Open Wheeled Racing.

You might have been sleeping when Hornish passed Marco at the line.

It is a race, not a technology demonstration. Go to the SEMA show where they show all the exciting technology, in a static display.

A race features cars and drivers competing against each other and no style points are awarded. Some might say the Dalara has no style, but fortunately the drivers seem to be more concerned about reliability, safety and speed.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 18:12

You mean like the "heayday of CART" with everyone running March/Cosworths?

Which brings up a good point.

Why even count the Dallara/Honda combo in the Indy 500 statistics, when they only won because of the lack of competition?

At least March/Cosworth, Penske/Chevrolet, Kurtis/Offenhauser, et al actually earned their way into the record books by competing against other chassis/engines.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 18:32

Kurtis/Offenhauser, et al actually earned their way into the record books by competing against other chassis/engines.

Chassis yes but engines well......

Here is the first Kurtis winner. How many engines did Johnnie Parsons beat with his Offy.

http://www.indy500.com/stats/view/boxscore/year/1950

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 18:40

It is a race, not a technology demonstration.

If technology plays no part in racing (which is big news to me), then put them on simulators at an arcade. Nothing could be safer for the drivers.

The fact is that manufacturers once entered the Indy 500 much like they enter Le Mans, for the prestige of winning.

ykiki

24th June 2008, 18:42

Chassis yes but engines well......

Here is the first Kurtis winner. How many engines did Johnnie Parsons beat with his Offy.

http://www.indy500.com/stats/view/boxscore/year/1950

Well....at least there was a Cummins ;)

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 18:52

How many engines did Johnnie Parsons beat with his Offy.

He beat a single Kurtis/Cummins.

How many did Scott Dixon beat with his Honda? Or Dario Franchiti with his Honda? Or Sam Hornish with his Honda?

That Chevy got beat by Honda in 2005, is ok. The win rightfully goes to Honda.

That 2006, 2007 and 2008 were run as a Honda spec race, means the stats are useless for anything but a place mark to show the lowest point of Indys 100 years of history.

At no time in the history of the Indy 500, was it ever limited to one manufacturer until the years 2006-2008.

That's how far this race has fallen from it's perch.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 19:07

He beat a single Kurtis/Cummins.

How many did Scott Dixon beat with his Honda? Or Dario Franchiti with his Honda? Or Sam Hornish with his Honda?

That Chevy got beat by Honda in 2005, is ok. The win rightfully goes to Honda.

That 2006, 2007 and 2008 were run as a Honda spec race, means the stats are useless for anything but a place mark to show the lowest point of Indys 100 years of history.

At no time in the history of the Indy 500, was it ever limited to one manufacturer until the years 2006-2008.

That's how far this race has fallen from it's perch.

How about Jim Rathmann in 1960. He also beat another Watson.

The 500 has alway been dominated by an engine. In 1946 was the highest amount of engines in the post war, 12 and 5 races later it was 2 and one more year 1.

This is a red herring and always has been. The 500 has not been a test lab of new ideas since the early Depression.

Things change and if you want teams spending $50,000,000 a year to win at Indy then all you will have to do is start the race as that will be the only car.

Do not talk about the CART years as all those engines were 158 Cubic Engine DOHC Turbo Engines. They raced under the same rules since January 1st, 1969. Something real current. NASCAR's engine rules changed twice in that time.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 20:06

This is a red herring and always has been. The 500 has not been a test lab of new ideas since the early Depression.

Speaking of red herrings!! Where did I ever state that it needs to be a test lab for new ideas?

Before your red herring attempt, my point was that open competition between manufacturers is what Indy was built upon. So what if Offy or Cosworth were dominate. It was open for any manufacturer to develop an engine specifically for Indy and unseat them.

I do agree that the need to create a new engine package opens the opportunity to incorporate new technologies. But that is much different than making the rules a free for all technology race.

What I want to see is open competition between engine manufacturers, so that the Indy 500 can once again be mentioned in the same sentence as Le Mans without eliciting hysterical laughter.

The Indy 500 should have been, and should always be, open to any manufacturer who builds a car to the series specs without the requirement that they lease their engines.

And why shouldn't they be allowed to make a chassis for Indy only? If Audi wants to run at just Indy as a factory team, with an Audi Chassis/Engine, then let them run at Indy as a factory team.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 20:21

What I want to see is open competition between engine manufacturers, so that the Indy 500 can once again be mentioned in the same sentence as Le Mans without eliciting hysterical laughter.

You mean about LeMans right. How many cars in the top class?

The Indy 500 should have been, and should always be, open to any manufacturer who builds a car to the series specs without the requirement that they lease their engines.

Hasn't been since 1997. That way a owner/manufacturer cannot spend their way into victory lane and in the years following kill the race.

And why shouldn't they be allowed to make a chassis for Indy only? If Audi wants to run at just Indy as a factory team, with an Audi Chassis/Engine, then let them run at Indy as a factory team.

RULES STATE: You build a chassis or engine it must be avialable to all wanting it.

If you want what you said, watch F-1. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE!

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 20:23

Do not talk about the CART years as all those engines were 158 Cubic Engine DOHC Turbo Engines. They raced under the same rules since January 1st, 1969. Something real current. NASCAR's engine rules changed twice in that time.

Well, seeing as how the majority of cars now have fuel injection and OHC, it would seem that NASCAR is still WAY behind the curve. Maybe they'll adopt fuel injection when the more efficient direct injection has replaced it in the marketplace.

But leaving your NASCAR red herring aside, I am talking about the Indy 500 and not about Indycars.

And at the Indy 500, you had the option to run a non-turbo V6 engine.

And Buick had a much larger market for engines verses Cosworth until that rule was finally artfully exploited. And that rule was not governed by CART.

And while that helped usher in the era of Cosworth domination, you still had a choice.

You had no choices during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 races and those results should have an asterics and should not be counted towards Honda for overall wins at the Indy 500.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 20:30

You mean about LeMans right. How many cars in the top class?

I mean the 24 Heures du Mans, held in Le Mans, France.

More than one engine manufacturer competed in 2008. How many were allowed to compete in the 2008 indy 500?

Hasn't been since 1997. That way a owner/manufacturer cannot spend their way into victory lane and in the years following kill the race.

RULES STATE: You build a chassis or engine it must be avialable to all wanting it.

So they killed the race under the auspicies of not wanting to kill the race.

How very ironic.

If you want what you said, watch F-1. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE!

And as long as there are misguided people like you making the decisions, the Indy 500 will never regain the prestige that it once held.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 20:33

Well, seeing as how the majority of cars now have fuel injection and OHC, it would seem that NASCAR is still WAY behind the curve. Maybe they'll adopt fuel injection when the more efficient direct injection has replaced it in the marketplace.

They can't regulate Fuel Injection. They can carbs.

But leaving your NASCAR red herring aside, I am talking about the Indy 500 and not about Indycars.

My mistake, I thought Indy Cars ran at the Indianapolis 500,

And at the Indy 500, you had the option to run a non-turbo V6 engine.

Really? It ran in CART too. You know the difference in the rule between USAC and CART?

And Buick had a much larger market for engines verses Cosworth until that rule was finally artfully exploited. And that rule was not governed by CART.

Ok, what ever that means.

And while that helped usher in the era of Cosworth domination, you still had a choice.

Cosworth won 3 500's before the Buick got there and the Buick never won.

You had no choices during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 races and those results should have an asterics and should not be counted towards Honda for overall wins at the Indy 500.

Different rules in 1997.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 20:37

Cosworth won 3 500's before the Buick got there and the Buick never won.

Sorry, I meant dominate supplier of engines to those running at the Indy 500 and not those who dominated by winning the Indy 500.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 20:39

I mean the 24 Heures du Mans, held in Le Mans, France.

More than one engine manufacturer competed in 2008. How many were allowed to compete in the 2008 indy 500?

So there were 33 Prototypes.

So they killed the race under the auspicies of not wanting to kill the race.

How very ironic.

Better crowd than last year. Don't like it then watch something else.

And as long as there are misguided people like you making the decisions, the Indy 500 will never regain the prestige that it once held.

Explain how I am misguided and how the rules established by a sanction that you obviously do not understand or want to are also misguided.

Remember LeMans established their own rules away from the FIA because the FIA was killing them. So they broke away from the world to save their event.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 20:39

Different rules in 1997.

And sadly, you are vehemetly defending those rules even though they are arguably responsible for the worst fields to compete in the Indy 500.

And this is why you should have no say in the future, as you are stuck in the mired past.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 20:41

Sorry, I meant dominate supplier of engines to those running at the Indy 500 and not those who dominated by winning the Indy 500.

I am always accused of needing a decoder ring to decifer what I write. Someone loan me on please for this.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 20:43

And sadly, you are vehemetly defending those rules even though they are arguably responsible for the worst fields to compete in the Indy 500.

And this is why you should have no say in the future, as you are stuck in the mired past.

I was there and saw a pretty good race. Not great but good.

Your problem is you do not understand there is not enough money to go around thus you need to narrow things rather than spread it.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 20:47

Remember LeMans established their own rules away from the FIA because the FIA was killing them. So they broke away from the world to save their event.

So USAC was the reason for the formation of the IRL? I did not know this.

Whatever spin you want to place on it, the Indy 500 suffered and so did AOWR.

The Honda 500 of 2006, 2007 and 2008 should have never been allowed to occur. And you can't blame CART and/or USAC for it.

After 10 years of seperation, nobody in their right mind would blame their ex-wife for their current problems. You should try owning up to the IRLs problems and stop blaming it on others.

NickFalzone

24th June 2008, 21:00

I'm not sure what the arguments are here. It was tough times indeed with the 2 series which brought us to this place of CC going bye bye and IndyCar with one engine manufacturer. The racing has still been good, and chances are good that there will be more than one manufacturer starting with the 2010 season. Track attendance has been up significantly at IndyCar races this season, and ratings while still not great have also been up across the board. Sponsors seem to be showing more interest, and that means more paid advertising. There's no question that Indy racing is at a fairly low point in history, but what else am I going to watch, F1? Indycar oval racing is still some of the most exciting racing around, and the occasional road/street is a good change of pace to test all-around driving skills.

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 21:14

So USAC was the reason for the formation of the IRL? I did not know this.

Where did I say that? FIA supplied cars to LeMans as did CART to the 500.

Whatever spin you want to place on it, the Indy 500 suffered and so did AOWR.

It was already dying, only the internet says different by people that weren't alive when the die was cast.

The Honda 500 of 2006, 2007 and 2008 should have never been allowed to occur. And you can't blame CART and/or USAC for it.

You are the one going back in time. Actually under this rule, Toyota and Chevy are still legal it is just they do not want to compete.

After 10 years of seperation, nobody in their right mind would blame their ex-wife for their current problems. You should try owning up to the IRLs problems and stop blaming it on others.

So what problems can you or I fix? I got an idea, you put up $4,000,000 and I will start an IRL team for you and then I can get to TG to change all the rules that need to be changed.
Understand we will be chasing Marty Roth.

In the heyday of CART who set the rules?

!!WALDO!!

24th June 2008, 21:16

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 21:30

I am always accused of needing a decoder ring to decifer what I write. Someone loan me on please for this.

The key lies in the definitions of RUNNING and WINNING.

Someone with your stated years of experience in motorpsorts should really have no issue figuring that out.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 21:51

Where did I say that? FIA supplied cars to LeMans as did CART to the 500.

Then you must have meant that CART was trying to dictate to USAC?

Or was this an apples to oranges comparison, that has no relevance.

It was already dying, only the internet says different by people that weren't alive when the die was cast.

The first race I ever attended was when Mario Andretti won at Long Beach. Guess when that was? You aren't the only person alive who has lived through this era.

Actually under this rule, Toyota and Chevy are still legal it is just they do not want to compete.

And why don't they want to compete in the greatest spectacle in racing?

Don't say it's cost, because they already have the engine formula locked in place and the series was designed to contain cost.

So why did Toytoa choose NASCAR over the IRL? The Daytona 500 over the Indy 500?

So what problems can you or I fix? I got an idea, you put up $4,000,000 and I will start an IRL team for you and then I can get to TG to change all the rules that need to be changed.
Understand we will be chasing Marty Roth.

I'd rather you run the team, and I speak to TG. You'd have him using NASCAR based pushrod engines.

In the heyday of CART who set the rules?

In the PPG Indycar Series or at Indy?

And therein lies my issue with the aftermath of the greatest debacle in motorsports.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 22:07

Not windblowing from people that must have forgotten Cosworth was the sole supplier of the CCWS for its life.

Unlike you, I didn't show up in this forum on unification day proclaiming a false victory.

I was here long before and being equally critical of CART and then CCWS. I was even labeled a doom and gloomer by some CART and then CCWS fans who had also firmly stuck their heads deep in the sand.

It's time for both sides to pull your heads out and look at reality.

The current reality is that the Indy 500 is all but irrellevant to engine manufacturers. And that is directly related to the rule changes that were instituted by the IRL when they split from CART and kicked USAC out of Indy.

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 22:11

...the greatest debacle in motorsports.

And I'm going to trademark this!

Rex Monaco

24th June 2008, 22:17

The Honda 500...

And I'm trade marking this too!

"Welcome to the Honda 500, the greatest debacle in motorsports!"

Wilf

25th June 2008, 03:20

I'm fully convinced you cannot be satisfied. You decry the Indianapolis 500 as a non race because there is only one chassis and one engine. Regardless of the non-competition, there was a race between 33 drivers, there was a winner and 32 losers after 500 miles. It might not have been what you would have liked, but unless you are someone very special, you probably aren't going to get everything you want.

This thread was started because the IRL is exploring the possibility of other suppliers for engines and yet you bad mouth the organization that survived the death spiral that was gripping American open wheel racing. They are trying to address your concern and yet it is not right. You obviously don't like how we got to where we are, but as a great philosopher once said: "No matter where you go, that's where you will be."

Please feel free to gloat if Honda doesn't get any competition for 2011. I don't believe that will be the case.

-Helix-

25th June 2008, 04:03

The current reality is that the Indy 500 is all but irrellevant to engine manufacturers.

..And?

The current reality also is that engine manufacturer competition is irrelevant to modern racing.

Sure, a variety is nice. But the Indy 500 will still be an exciting race with or without it.

Racing technology reached its peak years ago and has nowhere to go but backwards. Racing is about the actual racing these days.

tbyars

25th June 2008, 04:17

Before your red herring attempt, my point was that open competition between manufacturers is what Indy was built upon.

And yet, when TG makes the effort to do something about that, all you can find the intellect to do is to make fun of him for the effort.

"Hi, maybe you've heard about our race. It's the Indianapolis 500. We've been around almost 100 years. It used to be a very special event, with lots of hype and plenty of competition. But unfortunatley (sic), due to some misguided decisions, we now have to reintroduce ourselves to you the manufacturers and then to the general public."

The past three years were what they were. Unless you are smart enough to tell us about some technology you know about that we don't that can change that, then all we can really worry about is what happens going forward. But you can't. All you can do is complain about ANY effort going forward. Tell me, what is productive in that? How will it change the past?

What I want to see is open competition between engine manufacturers, so that the Indy 500 can once again be mentioned in the same sentence as Le Mans without eliciting hysterical laughter.

Fair enough. The first five words of that quote are the key. That's what YOU want to see.

When was the last time YOU sat down with the manufacturers - like TG is - and ASKED THEM if that is what THEY want to see?

What if it's not? What if what they want is a managed common spec to allow them development room with some innovation and a limit to unlimited research budgets? What if they won't participate without that limitation? How do you know that's not the case? What did they tell you when YOU sat down with them.

I want Jennifer Aniston to come knocking on my hotel room door about now so they won't laugh at me when I go to my meeting tomorrow morning. Not sure that has anything to do with what she wants, though. I've never asked her, either.

The Indy 500 should have been, and should always be, open to any manufacturer who builds a car to the series specs without the requirement that they lease their engines.

Buy the speedway and then you may feel free to make the rules. Easy answer. But those aren't the rules any longer, haven't been for decades, and probably never will be again. Most folks can understand that.

And why shouldn't they be allowed to make a chassis for Indy only? If Audi wants to run at just Indy as a factory team, with an Audi Chassis/Engine, then let them run at Indy as a factory team.

See answer to question above. Talk about red herrings! What is your evidence that they have ANY desire to do that? What is your evidence that ANY MANUFACTURER wants to do that?

And if they don't? If that approach in today's world doesn't hold a rational ROI (and it doesn't), is THAT TG's fault, too?

You're free to hold your own opinions. If the reality doesn't follow those opinions, you're free to do as you please. You can ridicule all you want. But, you might want to understand that, with the majority of the racing world right now, you are very much in the minority. I believe most motorsports fans appreciate TG's efforts to unify and diversify the sport. And at some point, your approach will begin to appear foolish and very, very petty.

electron

25th June 2008, 09:04

..And?

The current reality also is that engine manufacturer competition is irrelevant to modern racing.

Sure, a variety is nice. But the Indy 500 will still be an exciting race with or without it.

Racing technology reached its peak years ago and has nowhere to go but backwards. Racing is about the actual racing these days.

I second that absolutely.
While reading the thread the words circled in my mind and this is how I would have put it.

And I repeat my earlier statement: go with "stock block" or bring on something technology wise that is not around anywhere elese in the world - turbine-hydrogen-fuelcell-electro-blah.... future-eco-tech-diesel-whatever....

otherwise, no hightech, no engine war.

And? nothing and. enjoy the racing.

JSH

25th June 2008, 14:33

This is a red herring and always has been. The 500 has not been a test lab of new ideas since the early Depression.

I got news for ya bud.. The "Depression" is just round the corner.

JSH

25th June 2008, 14:38

They can't regulate Fuel Injection.

Yes you can.

As a fuel systems engineer, I can think of several ways that would be crude enough for NASCAR.

dataman1

25th June 2008, 14:58

Back to the topic. Did the meeting happen? Has anyone heard anything?

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 15:33

I believe most motorsports fans appreciate TG's efforts to unify and diversify the sport.

The first step to recovery, is to admit that you have a problem.

Unification was TG's admission that the split hurt AOWR and the Indy 500.

The need to 'introduce' (their word, not mine) manufacturers to the series is an admission that manufacturers don't care about it right now.

So if TG is willing to admit there was/is a problem, then you all need to pull your heads out and do the same.

I appreciate that TG appears to realize that he made a tremendous mistake 12 years ago, which cost him the prestige of his crown jewel of a race.

Some of you should follow his lead and stop pretending it was a stroke of genius.

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 15:52

All you can do is complain about ANY effort going forward.

Really? Can you quote that complaint of mine?

What I did was take the spin (and jab) that Waldo placed on his reporting of this news, and infuse it with the reality as was being reported.

Tell me, what is productive in that?

I'm waiting for you to address Waldo in the same manner. Oh wait, that's like waiting for you to admit that TG was misguided.

When was the last time YOU sat down with the manufacturers - like TG is - and ASKED THEM if that is what THEY want to see?

When was the last time TG sat donw with manufacturers and asked them what they want to see?

If I owned a series, it would be a yearly if not quarterly occurance.

What if it's not?

What if they laugh at TG and tell him to pound sand? That in the last 12 years, NASCAR has become a better 'spec' racing marketing tool and Le Mans let's them compete with technology?

Leaders lead. If he can't lead this series, then he needs to sell it.

I want Jennifer Aniston to come knocking on my hotel room door...

And I'd prefer Jessica Alba. I guess that the difference between those of you stuck in the past, and those of us looking for something new.

Buy the speedway and then you may feel free to make the rules.

So nobody is allowed to express their opinion in this group unless they own the Indianapolis Motor Speedway? Or just those you disgaree with?

What is your evidence that they have ANY desire to do that? What is your evidence that ANY MANUFACTURER wants to do that?

See I'm in sales and marketing. I listen to my clients and value their input. But I do whats best for my company and for my industry and show the clients how it is so.

And if they don't? If that approach in today's world doesn't hold a rational ROI (and it doesn't), is THAT TG's fault, too?

Well obviously it then be CART/CCWS fault. Because without them, Toyota and Honda never would have entered AOWR and we wouldn't be in this mess.

/sarcasm

You're free to hold your own opinions. If the reality doesn't follow those opinions, you're free to do as you please.

Not that I needed your permission to do so.

You can ridicule all you want.

Again, I don't need your permission.

But, you might want to understand that, with the majority of the racing world right now, you are very much in the minority.

Do you have a link to this survey or any evidence to support this claim?

I believe most motorsports fans appreciate TG's efforts to unify and diversify the sport.

Just as they appreciate the arson who renounces his crimes and then helps to rebuild the burned down building.

And at some point, your approach will begin to appear foolish and very, very petty.

Pot to kettle.

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 16:07

I'm fully convinced you cannot be satisfied.

Then you haven't read my posts.

You decry the Indianapolis 500 as a non race because there is only one chassis and one engine.

I didn't say it was a non-race. I said it wasn't the Indy 500. It was the Honda 500 at Indy.

Regardless of the non-competition, there was a race between 33 drivers, there was a winner and 32 losers after 500 miles.

And because of the non-competition, it was not the Indy 500.

It might not have been what you would have liked, but unless you are someone very special, you probably aren't going to get everything you want.

According to Waldo, GM and Toyota were eligble to enter. So it obviously wasn't very special for them either.

This thread was started because the IRL is exploring the possibility of other suppliers for engines and yet you bad mouth the organization that survived the death spiral that was gripping American open wheel racing.

I realize that many of you here have very short memory spans, but the original post included a partisan jab:

"I guess this means that TG is surrendering to whims of the CCWS fans or something to do with Danica :) .

I merely pionted out that TG was surrending to reality, and the reality is that he had to hire a firm to ensure the manufactures would attend.

Who could yever have imagined that the Indianapolis Motorspeeday would have to introduce themselves to manufacturers?

They are trying to address your concern and yet it is not right.

Again, it's obvious that you didn't read my posts.

You obviously don't like how we got to where we are, but as a great philosopher once said: "No matter where you go, that's where you will be."

At least that was obvious.

Please feel free to gloat if Honda doesn't get any competition for 2011. I don't believe that will be the case.

I truly hope that won't be the case, and that the Indy 500 will once again be a prestigous race.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 16:24

Yes you can.

As a fuel systems engineer, I can think of several ways that would be crude enough for NASCAR.

According to Mike Helton he claims no. Take it up with him.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 16:27

The key lies in the definitions of RUNNING and WINNING.

Someone with your stated years of experience in motorpsorts should really have no issue figuring that out.

You brought up the issue and from 1978-1987 every winner was Cosworth and they also were the majority of engines used.

I have no clue at what straw you were grasping at.

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 16:27

..And?

The current reality also is that engine manufacturer competition is irrelevant to modern racing.

Ok, if this is the current reality. Then show me another top tiered autoracing series anywhere in the world that does not have engine manufacturer competition.

Sure, a variety is nice. But the Indy 500 will still be an exciting race with or without it.

Variety isn't just nice. Variety is essential to the future of the ICS.

Racing technology reached its peak years ago and has nowhere to go but backwards.

Technology didn't peak. It was regulated to contain costs. Even then, it is always moving forward.

By definition rules are regulations. And in this discussion, the ICS is seeking the rules that a variety of manufacturers could support. That's a good thing. And something that is LONG over due!

Racing is about the actual racing these days.

Which explains all the happy fans that eagerly welcomed Toyota to NASCAR.

They must not have gotten the 'Engine Manufacturer is Secondary to the Show' memo. Can you please fax it again?

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 16:41

Then you must have meant that CART was trying to dictate to USAC?

Or was this an apples to oranges comparison, that has no relevance.

From January of 1989 through April 4th, 1995 USAC and CART had a Chassis agreement that ran from 1990 through 1995. Kirk Russell and Mike Devin would hammer out the rules. The date of April 4th 1995 is when the CART membership changed the Formula and ended this deal, thus locking themselves out of the 500. Not an opinion but a fact of history as I was there.

The first race I ever attended was when Mario Andretti won at Long Beach. Guess when that was? You aren't the only person alive who has lived through this era.

My second Indy car race was Mario's 4th start in a Champ Car. Go look it up.

And why don't they want to compete in the greatest spectacle in racing?

Money.

Don't say it's cost, because they already have the engine formula locked in place and the series was designed to contain cost.

Yes but only a few want to make the investment.

So why did Toytoa choose NASCAR over the IRL? The Daytona 500 over the Indy 500?

How many Dallara/Toyota are there in the driveways of America. I bet more Camry's

I'd rather you run the team, and I speak to TG. You'd have him using NASCAR based pushrod engines.

I would? I like this formula but the only way of increasing car count is lowering cost.

In the PPG Indycar Series or at Indy?

In the PPG Indycar Series. I bet you don't know. When Mario won at Long Beach the same people set the rules.

And therein lies my issue with the aftermath of the greatest debacle in motorsports.

It appears a lack of understanding of this history has made you bitter. Remember CART had a chance to Sanction the 500 for the year 1992. That was not done or voted on by the those that set the rules.

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 17:18

And why don't they want to compete in the greatest spectacle in racing?

Money.

Close. It's called ROI.

Yes but only a few want to make the investment.

Honda doesn't want to run the Honda 500 at Indy. They want it to be the Indy 500 won by Honda.

So what happened that nobody wanted to race at Indy anymore?

Figure that out (or admit the issue) and then you can fix it.

How many Dallara/Toyota are there in the driveways of America. I bet more Camry's

How many RWD Pushrod V8 Camry Coupe's are in the driveways of America? I bet none.

I like this formula but the only way of increasing car count is lowering cost.

So then you'd stick with a formula which hasn't worked for 12 years?

In the PPG Indycar Series. I bet you don't know. When Mario won at Long Beach the same people set the rules.

Except that when I first went to Long Beach and saw Mario Andretti win, he was driving the John Player Special. I made the bet that you didn't know that, and I won!

It appears a lack of understanding of this history has made you bitter.

As long as you want to make it personal, then what explains your arrogance?

Remember CART had a chance to Sanction the 500 for the year 1992. That was not done or voted on by the those that set the rules.

And that explains your bitterness towards CART/CCWS.

Do you really think that CART's mistakes justify TG mistakes?

You sound like a congressman. Their party stole money so why can't I?

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 17:27

Not an opinion but a fact of history as I was there.

When you include some facts and exclude others, it's called spin.

And that's the difference between you and I. I am not a CART/CCWS partisan. You are nothing but a shill for the IRL and TG.

That you showed up on unifcation day with spin (and your continued bragging to having been an insider), makes me suspect you could even be a paid shill for the IRL.

In fact, you even admitted to being the source for misinformation in another thread.

Hmmmm...

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 18:19

Close. It's called ROI.

Call it what you want but at least 6 were there yesterday.

Honda doesn't want to run the Honda 500 at Indy. They want it to be the Indy 500 won by Honda.

Just like the Offy 500 of 1960, Right.

So what happened that nobody wanted to race at Indy anymore?

Figure that out (or admit the issue) and then you can fix it.

I saw 33 cars this year as I did in 1965. What do you want me to fix?

How many RWD Pushrod V8 Camry Coupe's are in the driveways of America? I bet none.

I bet most do not know the difference.

So then you'd stick with a formula which hasn't worked for 12 years?

Actually, 11 years and it put CART and the CCWS out of business. So it worked in some ways.

Except that when I first went to Long Beach and saw Mario Andretti win, he was driving the John Player Special. I made the bet that you didn't know that, and I won!

Yea right so 1977 comes before 1964 at Springfield so you did win. He drove the White with Blue #7 Dean Van Lines Kuzma/Offy of Firestone Tires and Enco Methanol.

As long as you want to make it personal, then what explains your arrogance?

You are the one coming after me. It is too bad you see everything bad.

And that explains your bitterness towards CART/CCWS.

I have no bitterness toward CART. Went to over 75 races and worked with them. They had a responsibility to Open Wheel, they were more interested in protecting their own butts and not collectively.

Do you really think that CART's mistakes justify TG mistakes?

CART was dying before June of 1993. When you find out the significance of that date let me know. This is about the 15th anniversery.

You sound like a congressman. Their party stole money so why can't I?

What does that have to do with anything. Calling me a thief?

PETE ARON

25th June 2008, 18:21

Here are a few thoughts on the matter.

1. Even when Indy had just Offy's running, they were not all the same. Each cheif mechanic incorporated his own updates....cams, intakes, fuel blend, etc. Also, teams were free to run other engines if they thought they could do better...and eventually they did.

2. Being a spec engine for even a big racing series gets you some name exposure but is not necessarely a source of pride. Who did you beat? Oh, you ran the race without a single failure? Dial a racing engine down to well below its stress capability and any engine will run all week. No need to run it any harder. Big deal.

3. Money is speed. What manufacturer is ready to commit the dollars it takes to beat/outspend Honda? The only one capable and willing to do so ....Toyota...has left the building.

4. Personal opinion....major league racing does not sell cars. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday? Maybe once upon a time when NASCAR actually ran stock cars. Today's racers have NO CONNECTION to street products. I've been a racing fan since about 1960 and have bought a lot of cars in my day, but never once have been influenced by performance on the track. It has always been the product that sells, not the racing success. Sure there are brands such as Porsche and Ferrari that have a true racing mistique, but cars such as Lexus, Volkswagon, Lamborgini, Accura, very long list, etc. sell well without any racing exposure. (OK so Accura runs P2, but I doubt even 1% of Accura buyers know that.) If racing or racing success was important to sales, Toyota's F1 effort would have their company sales shrink to those of Hummer.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 18:27

When you include some facts and exclude others, it's called spin.

What did I leave out? Told the story 5 times go find it.

And that's the difference between you and I. I am not a CART/CCWS partisan. You are nothing but a shill for the IRL and TG.

Really? Link to me shilling for the IRL and Tony George. You seem like you hate everything about the IRL yet you come here and rip into everyone.

That you showed up on unifcation day with spin (and your continued bragging to having been an insider), makes me suspect you could even be a paid shill for the IRL.

Really, I did. Gee I guess my history stuff is for the IRL. That's right you wouldn't read that.

In fact, you even admitted to being the source for misinformation in another thread.

Hmmmm...

That's right and on CART friendly sites and most of the stuff you believe myself and 4 others fed you. The truth was in front of people like you but you chose to believe the lie. It is what it is and you are what you believe. I only believe read, saw and was told by those that preceded me.

I think you have earned my ignore list as you are just too vicious.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 18:36

Here are a few thoughts on the matter.

1. Even when Indy had just Offy's running, they were not all the same. Each cheif mechanic incorporated his own updates....cams, intakes, fuel blend, etc. Also, teams were free to run other engines if they thought they could do better...and eventually they did.

Yes but they were all 251.9 and the fuel blends were still regulated by USAC.

2. Being a spec engine for even a big racing series gets you some name exposure but is not necessarely a source of pride. Who did you beat? Oh, you ran the race without a single failure? Dial a racing engine down to well below its stress capability and any engine will run all week. No need to run it any harder. Big deal.

Well? Costs are to be controlled due to a lack of sponsors.

3. Money is speed. What manufacturer is ready to commit the dollars it takes to beat/outspend Honda? The only one capable and willing to do so ....Toyota...has left the building.

What ever. Please if there are 24 cars show me how you can spread the development costs and manufacturing cost for 6 suppliers of engines to the 24 cars.

4. Personal opinion....major league racing does not sell cars. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday? Maybe once upon a time when NASCAR actually ran stock cars. Today's racers have NO CONNECTION to street products. I've been a racing fan since about 1960 and have bought a lot of cars in my day, but never once have been influenced by performance on the track. It has always been the product that sells, not the racing success. Sure there are brands such as Porsche and Ferrari that have a true racing mistique, but cars such as Lexus, Volkswagon, Lamborgini, Accura, very long list, etc. sell well without any racing exposure. (OK so Accura runs P2, but I doubt even 1% of Accura buyers know that.) If racing or racing success was important to sales, Toyota's F1 effort would have their company sales shrink to those of Hummer.

Sorry but Ford, Chrysler, Chevy and Toyota are spending $100,000,000 each just to sell more cars on Monday. If it is 150 cars per Monday time 38 it is more cars than Ferrari will sell after the win in the French GP by 100 times.

NASCAR it works the rest of the world it doesn't.

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 18:38

You brought up the issue and from 1978-1987 every winner was Cosworth and they also were the majority of engines used.

I have no clue at what straw you were grasping at.

Why did you choose 1978-1987? Why not 1988-1997 or 1968-1977? Or 1969-1995?

This sideline was started by you in your attempt to grasp at straws.

How does the domination of an engine manufacuterer during any period in Indy's almost 100 year history when competition was open to any and all manufacturers, justify the recent history of closing the event to all but 3 participants, 2 (3 if you count Nissan) of whom saw no further value in participating?

Your "facts" do show that 'private' engine manufactuers dominated the Indy 500 (and Champcar/Indycar racing) for longer periods of time than 'factory' engine manufacturers did. Many years, they were Cosworths and not Ford/Cosworths.

So now you've eliminated factory competition and you've eliminated private engine builders from participating at Indy. And you really think that this was an overall good move for the sport and the race?

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 18:48

CART was dying before June of 1993. When you find out the significance of that date let me know. This is about the 15th anniversery.

CART is dead. CCWS is dead. And in reality, the IRL is dead too.

We are talking about how the ICS is now in a position, because of ALL the above parties EGOS and poor decision making, to hire a firm to ensure that manufacturers come to their meeting. And how you spun as a petty insult to the CCWS fans that this series needs to court to survive.

So remove your own arrogant ego, because I don't really care what insignficant fact to todays discussion you might know (or might have Googled today, for all I know).

Because so far what you've shown me is just more of the same arrogant obstinate BS that got us all here.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 18:48

Why did you choose 1978-1987? Why not 1988-1997 or 1968-1977? Or 1969-1995?

You brought up the Buick and it first showed in 1981. I am finished if you can't remember what fires you started.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 18:50

(or might have Googled today, for all I know).

Go ahead a google it. I bet you will not find it. It was in NSSN of that time.

Rex Monaco

25th June 2008, 18:55

I think you have earned my ignore list as you are just too vicious.

Yep, you're the victim. Poor, poor Waldo. You started a thread that spun the truth in an attempt to insult CCWS fans and then got called out on it.

Maybe more people should be on you ignore list, rather than let you get away with your atttempts at spinning facts.

!!WALDO!!

25th June 2008, 19:01

SPEED NEWS reported that representitives of Audi, BMW, GM, Ford, Honda and one other will be in Indy on Tuesday to hold a meeting with the IRL.

I would think it is to hear what the IRL's ideas are and hear the ideas of the manufacturers on what they would be willing to invest in.

Back on topic after it was diverted by a poster. :mad:

Wilf

25th June 2008, 20:59

May I suggest that everyone refrain from even a tongue in cheek reference to the CCWS or CART. That way, maybe we can discuss the real issues and not have to debate who has the biggest nose or whatever.

Anyway, It appears as though 9 manufacturers and 6 engine builders attended the round table yesterday. No specifics were discussed, rather it was the IRL saying where they thought they were going and asking the attendees how they thought they might participate.

A followup meeting has been requested and that is being coordinated now. Both NA and turbos were discussed as well as outright sales and leases. Nothing has been taken off the table.

More to come as it develops.

dataman1

25th June 2008, 21:27

Notes from 2 hour press conference below.

Highlights from IRL Engine/Car forum The IRL met with 15 engine manufacturer reps in Indianapolis Tuesday to drum up interest in supplying engines for the new Indy Car due in 2010 or 2011. Brian Barnhart and Terry Angstadt met with reporters today to discuss the outcome of those talks. Here are the highlights AutoRacing1.com made note of:

If the world goes according to the IRL's charted course, the IRL in 2011 will have lots of things that are very much like today's series. In an hour-long press conference, Brian Barnhart all-but-decreed that the IRL will remain a one-tire, one-chassis manufacturer. The tire will no doubt be Firestone - "I could never envision another tire" -- and the chassis will probably be made by Dallara -- "It's the only car in the world that does what it does, and it does it well."

What is open to discussion is the make of the engine. In a much publicized (but closed to the press) meeting yesterday, the IRL met with 15 parties interested in building engines for Indy. Far from contentious engine manufacturer meetings in the past, the event was deemed a "really good day" that "exceeded expectations." Six of the participants were motor shops (i.e., Cosworth) with the balance being auto manufacturers (Audi is widely believed to be one such attendee). The IRL would love to see 3 - 4 motor manufacturers, but believes it would be tough to justify 5 motors with 26 cars. Right now, there seems to be no immediate consensus of opinion as to the number of cylinders, configuration, or even the fuel used. The IRL did not discuss in the press conference even the broadest of parameters -- i.e., horsepower, displacement, weight, engine life.

Very much under discussion is the issue of turbocharging. The IRL is intent on controlling speeds as well as costs, and turbo motors are very good in the former regard, but suspect when it comes to cost control. As a bonus, the turbo motors are generally quieter, which is important in urban settings, but the sound that they do make is (gasp!) loved even by the IRL staff. Should turbo motors be the spec, the IRL will try to find ways to prohibit development of the turbos in an effort to control costs.

Don't look for these changes anytime soon. There will be more such roundtable meetings, as well as one-on-one meetings between the IRL and the individual parties, with the hope that a rough specification will be completed by "fall, 2008." This will hopefully allow interested parties to develop engines that will be submitted to the IRL for approval in time for the 2011 season. In addition, the IRL is on record that the current Dallara chassis will be used through the next 2 seasons.

No doubt one of those who will, barring some unforeseen circumstance, continue in the IRL will be Honda. Honda has stated for the past two years that it would welcome competition -- and why not, look what they did to the competition previously. However, Brian Barnhart was emphatic that the new motors will be much different than the current spec, so even Honda will be starting new in 2011. Tim Wohlford

call_me_andrew

25th June 2008, 23:52

Wow, an OT discussion of politics. I haven't seen that since the split!

I'm more interested in this "single-supplier" buisness. I don't mind it if the teams can do their own developement, but I don't want to see another spec series like the last year of Champ Car. Then there's the "build or buy" rule CART used. It was a good rule, but building a car is too expensive to justify the costs and usually one chassis becomes dominant anyway.

Multiple engines aren't necessary, but they're a great thing to have. We can have good racing without them. We don't need them. It's just a nice thing to have. Remember those Honda commercials with shots of street cars driving as the sound of an IndyCar engine was played? That promoted Honda an the series. The more manufacturers get involved, the more commericals from other manufacturers with IC tie-ins get played.

It's like when that one U.S. Presidential candidate challenged the other to a series of debates (I'll omit names in the interest of sending this further OT). It had nothing to do with debates and everything to do with TV time.

PETE ARON

26th June 2008, 00:48

Yes but they were all 251.9 and the fuel blends were still regulated by USAC.

You are quite wrong there Waldo! Until 1964 you could use all manner of fuel from alcohol, to gasoline, to jet fuel. Many cars ran various blends of nitro in their tanksl. After 1964, gasoline was eliminated as an option.

Well? Costs are to be controlled due to a lack of sponsors.

What does that mean Waldo? You think competitive manufacturers won't do or spend what it takes to win?

What ever. Please if there are 24 cars show me how you can spread the development costs and manufacturing cost for 6 suppliers of engines to the 24 cars.

Have no idea what you are saying Waldo.

Sorry but Ford, Chrysler, Chevy and Toyota are spending $100,000,000 each just to sell more cars on Monday. If it is 150 cars per Monday time 38 it is more cars than Ferrari will sell after the win in the French GP by 100 times.

NASCAR it works the rest of the world it doesn't.

Car companies are still in NASCAR because it has been such a "hot" sport and it seemed a no-brainer. I wonder if they can actually make a connection between their participation and sales. Toyota was doing very very nicely before running in NASCAR. The other three have been in NASCAR for years and are shriveling away.

I'm trying to picture even one fan this Monday saying to himself, "Hot damn!... Camry won yesterday....that does it...I just gotta get me one!" Though, he is well aware that not one single part on the winning car is for sale in the showroom.

By the way, if they did sell an extra 150 cars on Monday and Ferrari only sold one.....Ferrari would still make more profit on the deal.

gofastandwynn

26th June 2008, 02:14

IndyStar's article:

IRL pleased, looks at turbochargers

By Curt Cavin
Posted: June 25, 2008

Turbocharged engines might return to Indy-car racing in 2011.
The next generation of engines was the primary subject of this week’s Indy Racing League round table meeting with manufacturers, and league officials came away with a clear direction of where others want the sport to head.

“When we heard the enthusiasm around the room as to what turbochargers could bring to the series, I don’t think that will be a barrier at all,” said Terry Angstadt, the president of the IRL’s commercial division.

Brian Barnhart, the IRL’s president of competition and operations, said that while turbochargers will come at a cost, they are more adaptable to the sport’s various types of circuits and create a natural muffler.

“It’s nice to turn our decibels down a bit,” he said. “They have a nice sound.”

Angstadt and Barnhart declined to reveal additional specifics about the preliminary meeting, including the identity of a dozen-plus potential engine manufacturers, and said no decisions were made.

But it’s clear the subject is on the fast track: A formula is expected to be announced this fall because manufacturers need about two years to develop and test products.
The IndyCar Series currently has one engine manufacturer, Honda, which co-hosted the meeting at Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

Today’s eight-cylinder 3.5-liter engine is normally aspirated, which means it uses only the downward stroke of a piston to draw air into the cylinder through intake valves. The IRL has used normally aspirated engines since 1997 and returned to 3.5 liters last year.

The size of an engine and the fuel it uses also were topics of discussion at the meeting.

“Granted, we didn’t get into a lot of details, and the devil will be in those details,” Barnhart said. “But certainly from a first meeting standpoint, (there was) a lot more commonality than disagreement.”

Unification of U.S.-based open-wheel racing drove attendance at the meeting, said Barnhart, who estimated a 26-car field could support three to five engine builders. “But we won’t limit it,” he said.

Call Star reporter Curt Cavin at (317) 444-6409.

Rogelio

26th June 2008, 04:43

Whether I am repeating anything that was already said, my apologies. The IRL needs other engine manufactures to join the series. Why? Simple, all of the other major series have multiple engine manufactures. Toyota's deparature from the IRL probably had more to do with Honda's overspending and its lack of committment. Hence, they sure seem committed to F1 (can not compete) and NASCAR (can compete). The series needs multiple engine manufactures to gain any respectability.

Do Ganassi, Penske, and AGR want a change? Of course not, there on top.
The ICS needs to find a new engine and hopefully, before 2011. First and foremost, these cars are ugly. Even ICS fans got to admit that the DP01 was nicer, sleeker, sexier and better sounding than the current tanks that sound like shi*.

coogmaster

26th June 2008, 22:50

What happens when the day arrives that Honda, for what ever reason, decides to move on? There would be one heck of a scramble to find a suitable replacement.

Honda is set to be in the series through 2013. They are currently working on not finding a relpacement, but finding competition. Hence this meeting.

weeflyonthewall

27th June 2008, 01:14

Not to mention that nothing is forever. What happens when the day arrives that Honda, for what ever reason, decides to move on? There would be one heck of a scramble to find a suitable replacement.

Its happened before.

Lemmy-Boy

27th June 2008, 09:48

Unless TV ratings improve, all this talk about manufacturers entering the IRL is a joke. We all know Motorsport is a marketing tool, where visibility is really, really important to promote your activities, services, etc. And right now, the IRL is scraping the barrel in terms of viewer ratings, especially compared to NASCAR

In due time, TV ratings will (hopefully) increase to warrant future manufacturers to compete with Honda. But right now, apart from the I500, the IRL doesn't have a sizable viewing audience for manufacturers to justify a significant investment to supply engines.

Bob Riebe

27th June 2008, 15:17

EagleEye

27th June 2008, 15:40

SPEED NEWS reported that representitives of Audi, BMW, GM, Ford, Honda and one other will be in Indy on Tuesday to hold a meeting with the IRL.

I guess this means that TG is surrendering to whims of the CCWS fans or something to do with Danica :) .

I would think it is to hear what the IRL's ideas are and hear the ideas of the manufacturers on what they would be willing to invest in.

Four years away. Nothing to do with the whims of the CCWS fans, and nothing to do with Danica.

The goal was to find a dance parnter with Honda and the IRL in order to have at least one, and possibly two additional engine manufacturers.

!!WALDO!!

27th June 2008, 16:47

Four years away. Nothing to do with the whims of the CCWS fans, and nothing to do with Danica.

The goal was to find a dance parnter with Honda and the IRL in order to have at least one, and possibly two additional engine manufacturers.

That's right.

veeten

27th June 2008, 22:18

Up to 15 representatives were at the meeting, including Audi, BMW, FIAT(Alfa Romeo), Volkswagen... not to mention Cosworth, Illmor, Engine Developments Ltd. (Judd), AER.

If they continue with the present V8 formulae, the field will be well covered, as all of these have built, or still have in production, engines that fit the bill.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-impressive-guest-list-at-engine-summit/

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 21:29

Just like the Offy 500 of 1960, Right.

Was Offy the only engine allowed to participate in 1960?

You do know the difference between an open entry where people are free to choose the same engines, and a closed entry where people are forced to use the same engine, don't you?

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 21:32

You brought up the issue and from 1978-1987 every winner was Cosworth and they also were the majority of engines used.

I have no clue at what straw you were grasping at.

So I could have fielded a team this year and run a Cosworth engine? Is that the straw you have in your hand?

!!WALDO!!

10th July 2008, 21:37

So I could have fielded a team this year and run a Cosworth engine? Is that the straw you have in your hand?

Your point being? The Honda is the only manufacturer willing to compete in the ICS. Toyota and Chevy are "still legal" but unwilling to compete.

Now in 2007 what other engine was legal in the CCWS? NONE so there are your straws or do I need to go back to 2001 also?

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 21:42

You brought up the Buick and it first showed in 1981. I am finished if you can't remember what fires you started.

I brought up the Buick to show that it wasn't limited to V8 engines since 1969 or whenever, as you claimed earlier in this thread.

And despite any wins, Buick was chosen over Cosworth by a up to 1/3 of the field.

Choice. There has been no choice at Indy for 12 years. That's what killed Indy's prestige. That's why the ICS had to hire a firm to ensure that the manufacturers came to a meeting to discuss the future.

Keep ICS closed to contain the costs if that will really attract competition, but Indy has to be open to any and all competitors in order for it to be Indy. No more BS with these Honda 500's. If Tata or Chery want to build an engine just for the possibility of winning at Indy, let them enter one car.

!!WALDO!!

10th July 2008, 21:50

I brought up the Buick to show that it wasn't limited to V8 engines since 1969 or whenever, as you claimed earlier in this thread.

Never claimed that. But CART restricted the use of certain engines. Actually the number of 8s was real small as most were 4 cylinder engines. (1970-1977)

And despite any wins, Buick was chosen over Cosworth by a up to 1/3 of the field.

Because it was cheaper and had a boost advantage. Those teams used Cosworths in CART.

Choice. There has been no choice at Indy for 12 years. That's what killed Indy's prestige. That's why the ICS had to hire a firm to ensure that the manufacturers came to a meeting to discuss the future.

Choice? A Mercedes Ilmor, Ford Cosworth and a Honda in CART in 1995 all the same engine.

Keep ICS closed to contain the costs if that will really attract competition, but Indy has to be open to any and all competitors in order for it to be Indy. No more BS with these Honda 500's. If Tata or Chery want to build an engine just for the possibility of winning at Indy, let them enter one car.

You're right and I hope 33 is not important because there will be twelve starting the race. That will kill Indy's prestige.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 21:50

Your point being? The Honda is the only manufacturer willing to compete in the ICS. Toyota and Chevy are "still legal" but unwilling to compete.

Now in 2007 what other engine was legal in the CCWS? NONE so there are your straws or do I need to go back to 2001 also?

And there's my point. Only Honda, Toyota and Chevy are legal at Indy.

And what race had that same long storied tradition in CART/CCWS?

NONE, so there are your straws.

Go back to any point in USAC/CART/CCWS history that you'd like and show me a single race where manufacturers coveted that win enough to build a car especially for that event. You won't find it. In all of AOWR, only Indy had that kind of prestige. Emphasis on HAD.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 21:52

You're right and I hope 33 is not important because there will be twelve starting the race. That will kill Indy's prestige.

So there will only be 12 cars in the ICS that will start at Indy? Why is that?

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 21:58

Choice? A Mercedes Ilmor, Ford Cosworth and a Honda in CART in 1995 all the same engine.

I think English is where this conversation is breaking down.

Let's make this easier to understand.

If the government outlaws Pepsi, then I have no choice but to buy Coke.

If the government allows free competition in the soda wars and Coke is found to be the better product, then you can't blame the government for the lack of Pepsi sales.

Is there a difference between Coke and Pepsi? As much of a difference as there was between an Illmor, Cosworth and Judd.

!!WALDO!!

10th July 2008, 21:59

And there's my point. Only Honda, Toyota and Chevy are legal at Indy.

How many are legal in NASCAR? 4

And what race had that same long storied tradition in CART/CCWS? NONE, so there are your straws.

According to CART fans you sanctioned it. Good enough for the CCWS not good for the ICS.

Go back to any point in USAC/CART/CCWS history that you'd like and show me a single race where manufacturers coveted that win enough to build a car especially for that event. You won't find it. In all of AOWR, only Indy had that kind of prestige. Emphasis on HAD.

At Indy, 1911 when was the next time?

!!WALDO!!

10th July 2008, 22:00

So there will only be 12 cars in the ICS that will start at Indy? Why is that?

Lack of money and the money spent kills competition, has everytime tried.

!!WALDO!!

10th July 2008, 22:02

I think English is where this conversation is breaking down.

Let's make this easier to understand.

If the government outlaws Pepsi, then I have no choice but to buy Coke.

If the government allows free competition in the soda wars and Coke is found to be the better product, then you can't blame the government for the lack of Pepsi sales.

Is there a difference between Coke and Pepsi? As much of a difference as there was between an Illmor, Cosworth and Judd.

Not the same. The IRL made it a requirement that an Auto Manufacturer most be involved with the program. Been that way since 1997.

Don't waste your time as I am gone until Monday.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 22:02

Because it was cheaper and had a boost advantage. Those teams used Cosworths in CART.

So despite 'claims' of escalating costs, Indy was really dominated for most of it's history not by unlimited spending of manufacturers, but the ingenuity of engine builders to find an advantage on the open market.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 22:06

Not the same. The IRL made it a requirement that an Auto Manufacturer most be involved with the program. Been that way since 1997.

So in 1997 the IRL threw out all of Indy's history and tradition.

That coincides with the decline of the event and is the reason that they had to hire a firm to ensure that engine manufacturers attended this meeting a couple of weeks ago about the future of AOWR.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 22:09

At Indy, 1911 when was the next time?

See, you couldn't find a race other than Indy.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 22:12

According to CART fans you sanctioned it. Good enough for the CCWS not good for the ICS.

What you still haven't figured out, despite my many posts here, is that I am an Indy 500 fan. And it wasn't CART that killed that event.

Rex Monaco

10th July 2008, 23:01

Lack of money and the money spent kills competition, has everytime tried.

Then can you please show me a period in Indy's history prior to 1997 when they struggled to get 33 cars on the grid?

Because from this side of the grandstands, it seems like Indy only began struggling to fill their grid when they became worried about costs and limited the competition.

And just so you know what this side of the grandstand thinks, I am seperating the Indy 500 from the ICS. Just as it used to be.

Limit the competitors in ICS to Honda for all I care. But let Indy be wide open and see if bump day won't actually have some relevence in less than the 10 years it took to make in irrelevent.

!!WALDO!!

14th July 2008, 17:40

So despite 'claims' of escalating costs, Indy was really dominated for most of it's history not by unlimited spending of manufacturers, but the ingenuity of engine builders to find an advantage on the open market.
So if you bought the block, the connecting rod, the 4 pistons and the camshafts from Meyer-Drake Engineering then who built the engine and what can you add?

So in 1997 the IRL threw out all of Indy's history and tradition.
That coincides with the decline of the event and is the reason that they had to hire a firm to ensure that engine manufacturers attended this meeting a couple of weeks ago about the future of AOWR.
Look, do some checking yourself. The last time manufacturers came with a car/engine combination in an effort to win the 500 was the 1930s. Out of the junk formula came the Offenhauser engine.

See, you couldn't find a race other than Indy.
How about the STP Grant King Built Plymouth 335 cubic inch Dirt Cars that won the pole at Springfield, DuQuion, Hooser 100 and Sacramento in 1969. Went zero for 4 with wins though.

What you still haven't figured out, despite my many posts here, is that I am an Indy 500 fan. And it wasn't CART that killed that event.
Yet, your history is a little fouled up. When CART was given a chance to sanction the 500 they passed. December of 1991, Annual CART Board Meeting in Troy, MI.

Then can you please show me a period in Indy's history prior to 1997 when they struggled to get 33 cars on the grid?
1983.

Because from this side of the grandstands, it seems like Indy only began struggling to fill their grid when they became worried about costs and limited the competition.
It is called sponsorship, 225 MPH bullets do not make a good Sponsorship Platform. They were lousy at 150 MPH also.

And just so you know what this side of the grandstand thinks, I am seperating the Indy 500 from the ICS. Just as it used to be.
From 1911 through 1916 and from 1919-2008 the Indy 500 has been a point race on the National Championship Trail or the Indy Racing League. You claim to be a fan but every real fan knows this.

Limit the competitors in ICS to Honda for all I care. But let Indy be wide open and see if bump day won't actually have some relevence in less than the 10 years it took to make in irrelevent.
This is a CART/CCWS pov. There is no such thing as BUMP DAY as I have seen plenty of bumping on day 3 and limited bumping on day 4.
Look, go back and look at the history of the sport. In 1911 Marmon built two cars, on stock and one a racer and the racer won. The next year there were fewer cars and for every year after that. In 1930 the biggest field and soon it was down to 33 and almost all Offys.
From 1956-1968 the following were the engine rules: 4 cycle DOHC 256.7, 4 cycle DOHC Supercharged 168.1, 4 cycle OHC 305.00, 4 cycle OHC Supercharged 209.8, 2 cycle DOHC 203.00. (Turbine Rules: Air Anulus went from unlimited from 1956-1966 to 23.99 in 1967 and 15.99 in 1968)
From From 1969-1978 the following were the engine rules: 4 cycle DOHC 256.7, 4 cycle DOHC Supercharged 161.3, 4 cycle OHC 335.00, 4 cycle OHC Special Head 320.00 4 cycle OHC Supercharged 209.8, 2 cycle DOHC 203.00. (Turbine Rules: Air Anulus 11.99.) Also rules for el type engines.
Just because there was opening of the rules did not mean any one would compete or want to compete.
The majority of the engines became the 4 cycle DOHC Supercharged 161.3 just like the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s as one engine became dominate and the choice of those that could get them or afford them.

Chris R

14th July 2008, 18:13

hmmm, interesting argument Rex and Waldo - although I am not exactly sure what you are disagreeing about...

to answer the "one off" question - I am not sure manufacturers have ever really built a car just for one race (I am sure there are many examples of this - but I a not so sure it was ever the intention). The best modern example I can come up with is the 1994 Ilmor -Mercedes motor (which, I am still convinced, is the straw that broke the camel's back and led to the IRL). That being said - lots of manufacturers were lining up to tailor a car to NASCAR from the late 1960's on (the Superbird, Daytona, Torino Talledaga). Ford built the GT-40 to beat Ferrari at LeMans. Actually, the more I type, I realize the only race a manufacturer will build a car to win a single event is LeMans...

Anyway, historically, I am not sure manufacturers are all that important to the sport. Open wheel racing has traditionally been a sport of wealthy hobbyists spending enough money to amuse themselves and support the entire subculture. Even with the advent of sponsorship, most of the sponsorship either came from companies/individuals who loved racing and got some limited exposure for their expense. I think the real place where AOWR failed is when they started to believe their own hype that they were a viable marketing tool. Racing is fun but it is not a good advertising medium - the powers that be need to recognize that basic truth and tailor the rules to allow the wealthy folk to frolick and spend freely without bankrupting too many of them.... If some of them are cagey enough to get a manufacturer to pay their bills - good for them - if not bring on the independent engine shops... If you market it as a fun activity that a business/entrepreneur/wealthy person can spend some money on , get some meager return in marketing value but mostly just have lots of ego stroking fun then all will be well again.....

!!WALDO!!

14th July 2008, 19:02

to answer the "one off" question - I am not sure manufacturers have ever really built a car just for one race (I am sure there are many examples of this - but I a not so sure it was ever the intention). The best modern example I can come up with is the 1994 Ilmor -Mercedes motor (which, I am still convinced, is the straw that broke the camel's back and led to the IRL).

Ok some history.... In June 1993, Tony George and Herb Fishel announced starting in 1995, the official engine of the Indianapolis 500 and the newly formed Indy Racing League would be a 209 Turbo Charged 8 cylinder engine that could be bought for $75,000 and built for under $100,000 from GM. The boost pressure would be 55 inches and would be the ONLY LEGAL ENGINE IN 1995.

Tony George made a fatal mistake, he made the engine legal in 1994 but not the fact it had to be bought from GM. This engine had to be destroyed and TG left the door open to kill it. Illmor lost its Chevy badging at the end of 1993 and Penske went to an disinterested Mercedes to badge the Illmor but Penske gave Mercedes a free deal, we win Indy and you badge the Illmor 161 in 1995.
Penske spent $600,000 per engine and had 5 of them to kill the IRL engine.
After the 1994 500 TG gave up on this engine and was back to square one.

GM was not in love with this deal, they wanted something more high tech and when they went back in 1995 the Aurora engine became the engine style that would be legal in 1997.

That is the history of what happened.

dataman1

14th July 2008, 19:07

Thanks Waldo! Good information to have.

Chris R

14th July 2008, 19:15

!!WALDO!!

14th July 2008, 19:19

yes, thank you - did not know that little tidbit... So, do you think that Penske really shoving this thing in TG's face and making him look pretty bad was a big factor in TG deciding to go for broke and do the IRL?? It has always seemed to me that the Ilmor Mercedes was a real slap in the face to th IMS and it would have made me want to "get" CART et al.....

No, the IRL was going to happen. It was the hope of Penske and CART that TG would stop the foolishness. If they wanted to kill the foolishness then they should have voted on the Mehl/George proposal in December of 1991. This would have given CART the 500 and maybe USAC and they did not even get a second.

This was strictly politics and nothing to do with racing.

Miatanut

14th July 2008, 20:11

Then can you please show me a period in Indy's history prior to 1997 when they struggled to get 33 cars on the grid?

1983.

Doesn't look that way from this:
http://www.champcarstats.com/races/198302.htm

!!WALDO!!

15th July 2008, 17:28

Doesn't look that way from this:
http://www.champcarstats.com/races/198302.htm

http://www.indy500.com/stats/view/grid/year/1983

Look at Chet Fillip and the alternate was John Mahler, three MPH slower. Car count has nothing to do with if it was tough or not to fill the field.

Miatanut

16th July 2008, 03:06

http://www.indy500.com/stats/view/grid/year/1983

Look at Chet Fillip and the alternate was John Mahler, three MPH slower. Car count has nothing to do with if it was tough or not to fill the field.

So Indy had a 105% rule I've forgotten about? I would say we are just looking at the good old days, when the cars weren't all clones of each other and some were WAY faster than others. As we saw from champcarstats.com, there were more cars that tried and DIDN'T make the field than did. Compare that with now, where until this year, they had to cobble together a couple last entries so they could have a "bump day:.

Chris R

16th July 2008, 12:19

I think there were also a greater number of people who paid the entry fee to have a front row seat to the action in those days. Enter a car and get a garage - the best pit pass in history.... For example Jim Hurtibuise never had a chance of getting his Mallard into the field but he entered it at least until 1980....

That being said, it is hard to argue that a fuller entry list is a bad thing....

Alexamateo

16th July 2008, 14:09

http://www.indy500.com/stats/view/grid/year/1983

Look at Chet Fillip and the alternate was John Mahler, three MPH slower. Car count has nothing to do with if it was tough or not to fill the field.

Come on Waldo, a good historian like yourself would know that lineup ended up that way because of rain. Weekend 1 was completely washed out and they ended up qualifying 33 cars on Saturday day 3. Mahler and Fillip took times they knew to be too slow counting on exactly what happened, that Sunday would be a rainout. It worked out for Fillip, but not for Mahler, as Dennis Firestone bumped him. I think it started raining during his run, but he was still able to complete it. Dennis Firestone was the only car to qualify on Sunday, Gary B. waved off a run after a 193+ lap earlier and was back in line when it started raining.

Here are the stats for the race 93 cars entered, 73 practiced driven by 63 drivers. 5 cars were in line when the rains came. There may have been times when it was tough to fill the field, but this was not one of those years.

http://www.indy500.com/images/stats/pdfs/dtr/1983.pdf

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 16:04

So Indy had a 105% rule I've forgotten about? I would say we are just looking at the good old days, when the cars weren't all clones of each other and some were WAY faster than others. As we saw from champcarstats.com, there were more cars that tried and DIDN'T make the field than did. Compare that with now, where until this year, they had to cobble together a couple last entries so they could have a "bump day:.

One car got bumped. The rest could not make 180

Only John Mahler was the only other car to qualify. DNS TOO SLOW means qualified and got bumped.

"I thought my sign said 200." said Mahler. "Seriously we were the fastest of what was left and 180 was the best this car did all month."

Just because of cars does not mean that there wasn't a struggle to fill the field. 24 MPH is the largest spread in 500 history and Fillip was warned of being Black Flagged if he was too slow. He was and was.

Why is bumping so important at Indy and not at any of the other tracks? In my day a 24 car field and 30 drivers trying meant many cars going home. CART took bumping out of the equation in the 1980s.

I remember the Mays 100 of 1960. Go to the champcarstats.com and look at the cars that went home, including the 1960 500 winner and other 500 winners and the 1960 Pole sitter at Indy ran second in the consi otherwise Eddie Sachs would have gone home too.

http://www.motorsport.com/stats/champ/data/ch196003.pdf

That is REAL BUMPING.

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 16:06

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 16:06

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 16:27

Come on Waldo, a good historian like yourself would know that lineup ended up that way because of rain. Weekend 1 was completely washed out and they ended up qualifying 33 cars on Saturday day 3. Mahler and Fillip took times they knew to be too slow counting on exactly what happened, that Sunday would be a rainout. It worked out for Fillip, but not for Mahler, as Dennis Firestone bumped him. I think it started raining during his run, but he was still able to complete it. Dennis Firestone was the only car to qualify on Sunday, Gary B. waved off a run after a 193+ lap earlier and was back in line when it started raining.

Here are the stats for the race 93 cars entered, 73 practiced driven by 63 drivers. 5 cars were in line when the rains came. There may have been times when it was tough to fill the field, but this was not one of those years.

http://www.indy500.com/images/stats/pdfs/dtr/1983.pdf

So Alsup, Ferguson, Gehlhausen, Boom-Boom Cannon and Gary B were strong rides?
Alsup in a 1983 Argo-T/Cosworth was a sled.
Ferguson in 1981 March T/Cosworth was strong in 1981 not in 1983 thanks to the rules.
Gehlhausen in a 1982 Eagle T/Cosworth. The car Mike Mosley could not qualify in 1982.
Cannon---in a 1977 Vollstedt T/Offy. A car that Dick Simon drove in 1977, the car was 6 years old.
Gary B had a problem keeping the Falconer V-6 Chevy glued together. The chassis was 5 years old.

Yes real strong stuff.

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 16:37

The last time manufacturers came with a car/engine combination in an effort to win the 500 was the 1930s.

Well off the toip of my head, there were post-war entries from Maseratti and Ferrari. But we aren't talking about chassis/engine combinations here, are we? This thread is about engine manufacturers.

Out of the junk formula came the Offenhauser engine.

Which I also believe produced a Maseratti/Offy.

Yet, your history is a little fouled up. When CART was given a chance to sanction the 500 they passed. December of 1991, Annual CART Board Meeting in Troy, MI.

I know, I know. The chance that CART passed up is the sole source of all AOWR and the Indy 500's problems. It had nothing to do with any of the events by other parties that followed.

1983.

So 33 car's starting with 32 car's failing to qualify is your idea of Indy struggling to fill the grid?

It is called sponsorship, 225 MPH bullets do not make a good Sponsorship Platform. They were lousy at 150 MPH also.

STP, Penzoil, Domino's Pizza, Marlboro, Target and many more all paid to be at Indy at one time or another. But that was when the TV audience and the series exposure was much larger.

From 1911 through 1916 and from 1919-2008 the Indy 500 has been a point race on the National Championship Trail or the Indy Racing League. You claim to be a fan but every real fan knows this.

I didn't think you'd be able to post a reply without a personal insult.

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 16:48

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:04

Well off the toip of my head, there were post-war entries from Maseratti and Ferrari. But we aren't talking about chassis/engine combinations here, are we? This thread is about engine manufacturers.
Maybe do some research on this as Ford and Studebaker made multi car efforts. You did bring up one off efforts to win the 500. That was the only time. This was a full factory effort. Most others were garage efforts or a rich guy buying a car.

Which I also believe produced a Maseratti/Offy.
There were that chassis and engine combos.

I know, I know. The chance that CART passed up is the sole source of all AOWR and the Indy 500's problems. It had nothing to do with any of the events by other parties that followed.
How can any of the other things happen if they sanctioned the 500? No IRL, no split no nothing.

So 33 car's starting with 32 car's failing to qualify is your idea of Indy struggling to fill the grid?
Only 34 cars qualified. 34-33=1

STP, Penzoil, Domino's Pizza, Marlboro, Target and many more all paid to be at Indy at one time or another. But that was when the TV audience and the series exposure was much larger.
Only Target survives and most left in the mid 1990s.

I didn't think you'd be able to post a reply without a personal insult.

Never insulted you but you do me all the time.

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:07

Regardless of who qualified and why, they did not struggle to find 33 entrants. A scenario that is currently the norm.

So entries are more important and cars that can challenge to win. 1000 people is better even though the place holds 250.

And for all the talk about the need to control costs, it appears that the formula in 1983 allowed people to enter cars on a limited budget.

Yup and how many of those cars showed up on the CART schedule?

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 17:14

So entries are more important and cars that can challenge to win. 1000 people is better even though the place holds 250.

And the current system of begging people to enter, produces the best fields that have ever run at Indy? Sure, ok...

Yup and how many of those cars showed up on the CART schedule?

I'm not sure what your fixation on CART is all about, but I have yet to point to CART as the model that should be followed. All I am saying that the model you are defending is flawed. And if pointing to CART as also having been flawed is your only argument in defense of the current model, then it would be better for you to just to admit that the current model is flawed.

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 17:16

Never insulted you but you do me all the time.

So this was your attempt at a complement?

"You claim to be a fan but every real fan knows this."

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:18

And the current system of begging people to enter, produces the best fields that have ever run at Indy? Sure, ok...

Begging? Never been done.

I'm not sure what your fixation on CART is all about, but I have yet to point to CART as the model that should be followed. All I am saying that the model you are defending is flawed. And if pointing to CART as also having been flawed is your only argument in defense of the current model, then it would be better for you to just to admit that the current model is flawed.

In 1983, WHERE ELSE COULD YOU RACE YOUR INDY TYPE CAR?

garyshell

16th July 2008, 17:19

You claim to be a fan but every real fan knows this.

I didn't think you'd be able to post a reply without a personal insult.

Never insulted you but you do me all the time.

At the risk of being accused of picking nits, I again question how a teacher of English could not consider the first quote above as an insult??? :eek:

Gary

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:19

So this was your attempt at a complement?

"You claim to be a fan but every real fan knows this."

Not an insult but a FACT. It appears you didn't know this. I can't help you with that.

Miatanut

16th July 2008, 17:20

So entries are more important and cars that can challenge to win. 1000 people is better even though the place holds 250.

In the good old days, when the cars weren't all clones, there was a big spread. I'd much rather have the good old days, with folks trying all kinds of funky ideas, most of which won't work out, than have the current situation. I think there are a lot of folks in that camp, which is why we see paltry crowds at most venues.

Yup and how many of those cars showed up on the CART schedule?

http://www.champcarstats.com/year/1994.htm

HALF the races that year, they sent cars home early because they lacked pit space, space on the track, or CART just decided they were too slow and sent them home, because CART had the luxury of doing that.

Now, looking at things today...

garyshell

16th July 2008, 17:23

Begging? Never been done.

Really? What would you call what happened the year before and the year of the now infamous quote by "king George"... Thirty three is just a number... ??? Begging sounds like an apt description.

Gary

garyshell

16th July 2008, 17:25

Not an insult but a FACT. It appears you didn't know this. I can't help you with that.

Hmm, so hypothetically speaking, calling you pompous wouldn't be an insult then, right?

Gary

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:28

In the good old days, when the cars weren't all clones, there was a big spread. I'd much rather have the good old days, with folks trying all kinds of funky ideas, most of which won't work out, than have the current situation. I think there are a lot of folks in that camp, which is why we see paltry crowds at most venues.

Problem was in the early 1980s there was attempts to get old stuff to run with chewing gum and spit. So yes, there was a spread but the 1983-1984-1985 started to kill off those efforts.
Paltry crowds? How about 6900 to see Foyt, Andretti, Unsers, Ruby, etc? That was 40 years ago at PIR.

Open Wheel always had those problems.

http://www.champcarstats.com/year/1994.htm

HALF the races that year, they sent cars home early because they lacked pit space, space on the track, or CART just decided they were too slow and sent them home, because CART had the luxury of doing that.

Now, looking at things today...

Those cars were not within 105%. The CART rules allowed them to start if they were within that range.

Amazing how 1994 is used when Penske won all but 3 races and had 6 1-2-3 finishes. This was the model CART year.

Alexamateo

16th July 2008, 17:34

So Alsup, Ferguson, Gehlhausen, Boom-Boom Cannon and Gary B were strong rides?
Alsup in a 1983 Argo-T/Cosworth was a sled.
Ferguson in 1981 March T/Cosworth was strong in 1981 not in 1983 thanks to the rules.
Gehlhausen in a 1982 Eagle T/Cosworth. The car Mike Mosley could not qualify in 1982.
Cannon---in a 1977 Vollstedt T/Offy. A car that Dick Simon drove in 1977, the car was 6 years old.
Gary B had a problem keeping the Falconer V-6 Chevy glued together. The chassis was 5 years old.

Yes real strong stuff.

Well, On Saturday, Alsup waved off a 189,190,189 run, Gary B a 187 run, Ferguson a 185 run, and a later 190 run, Gelhausen a 187 run, All speeds that could have put them in the field ahead of Fillip, and evidently no one thought a 190 was going to make the field because of the wave-offs, because Firestone also waved off a 191,186,189 run although he obviously messed up his second lap. FWIW, Phil Krueger, Rich Vogler, Ken Schraeder, and Doug Heveron all had run 191+ in practice although all crashed in practice later.

Obviously most expected 192-193 would be necessary to make the race. Again, the only reason there were only 34 qualifiers that year was the rain.

To review 34 completed runs, 5 cars in line, 4 others who had speed but crashed during the month, and that doesn't even count guys like Bill Tempero, who waved off a 172 run.

The premise that it was tough to fill the field in 1983 just doesn't hold water.

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:34

It is, as you well know, an insult.

How about this?

"calling you pompous wouldn't be an insult then, right?"

It is amazing a basic fact not known by one but known by everyone else and pointing it out is an insult but the other Moderator calling me names is not.

Two set of rules one known and one not.

!!WALDO!!

16th July 2008, 17:39

Well, On Saturday, Alsup waved off a 189,190,189 run, Gary B a 187 run, Ferguson a 185 run, and a later 190 run, Gelhausen a 187 run, All speeds that could have put them in the field ahead of Fillip, and evidently no one thought a 190 was going to make the field because of the wave-offs, because Firestone also waved off a 191,186,189 run although he obviously messed up his second lap. FWIW, Phil Krueger, Rich Vogler, Ken Schraeder, and Doug Heveron all had run 191+ in practice although all crashed in practice later.

Obviously most expected 192-193 would be necessary to make the race. Again, the only reason there were only 34 qualifiers that year was the rain.

To review 34 completed runs, 5 cars in line, 4 others who had speed but crashed during the month, and that doesn't even count guys like Bill Tempero, who waved off a 172 run.

The premise that it was tough to fill the field in 1983 just doesn't hold water.

I worked the Speedway that month in an Officials roll. It was a lot tougher than that. The big loss was John Paul Jr.

These older cars would not hold their speeds in continual laps. If Paul had not crashed then Fillip would have been bounced.

Remember something also, pop off valves went on in tech. So this times although good were at what boost?

If you don't like that year pick another. 1982? 1984?

Chris R

16th July 2008, 18:15

Despite the quality of the field in 1983 - the fact of the matter is that there were more than 33 cars presented to qualify - something that has not always been the case recently.... Also, whatever intrigue was going on behind the scenes in 1983 certainly added to the "show" - recently it has been pretty bland to say the least....

1983 had a full field of characters - 2006 and 2007 most certainly did not...

anyway, why was Waldo banned? it seemed like he was the name "calle" - not the name caller....

garyshell

16th July 2008, 18:22

Hmm, so hypothetically speaking, calling you pompous wouldn't be an insult then, right?

Gary

How about this?

"calling you pompous wouldn't be an insult then, right?"

It is amazing a basic fact not known by one but known by everyone else and pointing it out is an insult but the other Moderator calling me names is not.

Two set of rules one known and one not.

I am not a moderator and the question was purely hypothetical.

Gary

Lousada

16th July 2008, 18:32

Sooooo, what's this argument about anyway?

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 18:39

Not an insult but a FACT. It appears you didn't know this. I can't help you with that.

So it's a FACT, and not an OPINION, that I am not a real fan? Is that really how you are going to explain away your insult?

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 18:39

Sooooo, what's this argument about anyway?

Cakes and Pies. I say Pie tastes better.

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 18:42

In 1983, WHERE ELSE COULD YOU RACE YOUR INDY TYPE CAR?

At Indy, under USAC.

Chris R

16th July 2008, 18:44

Sooooo, what's this argument about anyway?

hmmm - well, hmmm- ahhh..... :p

Let's see. Somebody said they never had problems filling the field before (meaning, as near as I can tell, actually getting entries to actually have a need for bumping) before the IRL.

Waldo said they had a problem in 1983.

It has clearly been demonstrated, as near as I can tell, that any problems that were had in 1983 related to quality not quantity.

Since the original questioner seemed to be more concerned about quantity and Waldo seemed more concerned about quality- and, well, it just became a train wreck from there....

Does that about cover it??

Too bad - the core of this disagreement - quality vs. quantity is a pretty interesting discussion and one that is pretty key to the future of the sport. Do bigger numbers of weekend warriors make for a more interesting show or are we better off with a smaller field of professionals. Nascar clearly favors quantity, F-1 quality - AOWR is somewhere in the middle as it has pretty much always been....

Lousada

16th July 2008, 18:59

hmmm - well, hmmm- ahhh..... :p

Just as I suspected: an argument that's not actually an argument but just two people talking away without listening to eachother. I'd almost guess I was at an internet forum.

Miatanut

16th July 2008, 19:34

hmmm - well, hmmm- ahhh..... :p

Let's see. Somebody said they never had problems filling the field before (meaning, as near as I can tell, actually getting entries to actually have a need for bumping) before the IRL.

Waldo said they had a problem in 1983.

It has clearly been demonstrated, as near as I can tell, that any problems that were had in 1983 related to quality not quantity.

Since the original questioner seemed to be more concerned about quantity and Waldo seemed more concerned about quality- and, well, it just became a train wreck from there....

Does that about cover it??

Too bad - the core of this disagreement - quality vs. quantity is a pretty interesting discussion and one that is pretty key to the future of the sport. Do bigger numbers of weekend warriors make for a more interesting show or are we better off with a smaller field of professionals. Nascar clearly favors quantity, F-1 quality - AOWR is somewhere in the middle as it has pretty much always been....
Good summary, but as far as quality, in the days when it was all-out, big money, the span between fastest and the slowest was as big, sometimes bigger, than it is now. Remember the year when Penske didn't make the field a year after winning? Mr. Preparation? It was just very, very competitive and folks had different cars taking different routes to get there.

Contrast that to now, in the spec car world. The cars all start out a lot closer and the difference is in preparation and driver. As a gearhead, I find this pretty boring. I'd gladly take a bigger spread in the field for more technical variation. For me, that's higher quality competition.

Chris R

16th July 2008, 20:13

Good summary, but as far as quality, in the days when it was all-out, big money, the span between fastest and the slowest was as big, sometimes bigger, than it is now. Remember the year when Penske didn't make the field a year after winning? Mr. Preparation? It was just very, very competitive and folks had different cars taking different routes to get there.

Contrast that to now, in the spec car world. The cars all start out a lot closer and the difference is in preparation and driver. As a gearhead, I find this pretty boring. I'd gladly take a bigger spread in the field for more technical variation. For me, that's higher quality competition.

your point is exactly what makes this an interesting discussion. I tend to agree with your point of view - technical variation, while not always measuring up in ultimate quality, definitely adds interest to the sport for me.

I am not nearly as taken with the current way of doing things as I was with say 1964-1994. Now, to be fair, the 1980's were my formative years as a racing fan - so I am sure I view them through rose colored glasses - but it seemed far more interesting than our spec formula of today. There were so many more people to follow than today - you had the drivers, and interesting group, you had some legendary wrenches (Bignotti etc.), you had hands on team owners (Gurney, Jones, Granatelli), you had all the car designers, and you had lots of well known (at least in racing circles) hanger's on - today it is mostly team owners and drivers - everything else is less human and more corporate..... I could be wrong - butthat is my impression....

This has little to do with CART, the IRL, or anything - it is just the way the world has changed and it is reflected in our sport....

Alexamateo

16th July 2008, 20:28

I worked the Speedway that month in an Officials roll. It was a lot tougher than that. The big loss was John Paul Jr.

These older cars would not hold their speeds in continual laps. If Paul had not crashed then Fillip would have been bounced.

Remember something also, pop off valves went on in tech. So this times although good were at what boost?

If you don't like that year pick another. 1982? 1984?

Sorry Waldo, these folks disagree with you, and in this particular instance, I am more inclined to agree with them.

http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59855&highlight=Chet+Fillip

On the last day it was Dennis Firestone, Bill Alsup, Dick Ferguson, and Spike Gelhausen who were really testing each other for the last two spots. The one other with a chance was Boom Boom but he was slightly slower then the rest of us but not far off. After further practice on bump day our feelings were the real threat was actually Spike Gelhausen. Spike worried us. By qualification time our view was it was between us and Spike for 32nd. If we beat Spike our view was between, Bill, Dick, and Boom Boom two of them would not top us. If Spike beat our time we would be sitting 33rd and with the reminder of the day we believed it was possible for one of the remaining three real contenders to bump.
Personally I think Spike was thinking the same thing. What really was occurring that last day was Dennis and Spike were testing each other to get 32nd. Neither wanted to qualify below the other to get put on the bubble. The other three were so close that they were trying to just gain a little speed to knock one of us out. So while the 5 of us were playing games the rain was coming which is how Chet ended up making the field. Had it never rained that day i suspect it would have been Dennis or Spike either way for 32-33. Ferguson 34th. Cannon 35th, Alsup 36th but all five within a mile per hour.

A few interesting additonal notes about that final day. Dennis and Spike were running slightly over 191. Ferguson best time of the month was a little over 190. Alsup had done a 190 but seemed not able to get back to that speed. Cannon was running in the 189 range. Their really were few attempts left. Dennis, Ferguson and Alsup had already used two attempts and thus only had one left. Spike still had 2 attempts left. Cannon had all three. One other forgotten note. One other driver really had a shot at making that race hard luck Phil Krugar.. On saturday he had gotten his car up to 192. In the practice on bump day he had run
190.9. However in that practice he hit the wall and destroyed his car.

Rex Monaco

16th July 2008, 21:45