Look to the engine formula, not aero kits, for growth
IndyCar, IndyCar commentary — By John Lingle on February 20, 2013 11:49 amWith the recent announcement that aero kits are (a) still on the table, and (b) delayed yet again, IndyCar remains stuck in a vicious cycle of will-they-or-won’t-they stories.
With a reported 12-month lead time needed for Chevy or Honda to supply the series with aero kits, this lingering question needs to be put to bed one way or another — and in the very near future — for the good of the IZOD IndyCar Series, its participants, and its fans.
As the cost-conscious team owners have pointed out repeatedly, aero kits will cost a minimum of $65,000 apiece, not to mention the unknown costs of development and tweaking that will undoubtedly arise at the first sign of a perceived advantage. Any benefits of technological innovation and different appearances between chassis will be offset by these increased costs, which may or may not be affordable given the current status of the sport.
An alternative solution needs to be pursued in the short term — one that will save the teams and the Series money while still leading to a better on-track product and increased technical innovation.
Engine R&D costs are shouldered by the manufacturers, leaving the teams to pay only the fixed costs of leasing, which are far easier for today’s budget-conscious owners to be comfortable with. A renewed focus by IndyCar on attracting new partners would bring increased competition and technical innovation in a way that would not break teams financially in the process.
However, the current engine formula may be preventing the Series from attracting new manufacturers to IndyCar competition.
Some manufacturers, like Chevrolet, see value in badging engines for racing competition that carry little production value. Race fans don’t know who builds the engines for Chevrolet’s IndyCars — they only know those winning cars have Bowties on the side, and Chevrolet evidently finds that’s enough to drive those people into dealerships.
Honda has been a wonderful partner to IndyCar, and its continued support is crucial as well given the relationships they have cultivated with teams like Target Chip Ganassi Racing. Any changes would need to be made with the full intention of including these valuable partners.
But many companies have begun to ramp up sports car programs in recent years as a way to directly showcase their production cars. The GT ranks have swelled to all-time highs while prototype classes face dwindling car counts and decreased manufacturer involvement. “Brand relevance” has become a catch phrase among the top brass of numerous automobile companies.
However, IndyCar’s engine formula prohibits manufacturers from using production-based engines. A change to this formula in the near future could help to attract more partners and inject some needed energy into the Series.
Ford’s global racing presence, ranging from NASCAR all the way down to club racing, makes it one of the targets with the highest potential for attracting to open wheel. Their new EcoBoost engine, a turbocharged V6, is such a natural fit for IndyCar that it seems almost too good to be true. But Jamie Allison, the head of the Ford Racing program, recently revealed to Marshall Pruett that Ford has no intention of joining Chevy and Honda in IndyCar competition unless a return is made to a production-based engine.
Ford has shown a willingness and enthusiasm for spending development dollars on production-based engines, especially given their recent announcement of an EcoBoost twin-turbo engine for Daytona Prototype competition next year. A change in the IndyCar engine formula could prove useful in attracting Ford back to the Speedway in what would surely be considered a marketing and competition coup.
Dodge sits as another shining example of a company with a history in racing and a ripe disposition for attracting to IndyCar. Ralph Gilles, President of SRT/Dodge, has felt the sting of wasted money after developing a new Gen 6 NASCAR Sprint Cup car only to have Penske bolt to Ford at the eleventh hour and leave the Mopar gang holding the bag and unable to attract a top-tier replacement for the 2013 season.
Since that time, Gilles and SRT have rebounded nicely by debuting their popular Viper in ALMS competition last year with the program expanding to possible customer teams this year. The Mopar group also has sponsorship in place in Rallycross, Supercross, and TORC off-road racing. A return to production-based engines might prove to be the impetus needed to encourage Dodge to put some of that money into the engine manufacturer battles in IndyCar.
The current formula has without doubt been a step in the right direction. It helped save a sinking ship from imminent doom — the driving is up to the drivers again, and competition is markedly better. But to truly secure the future of IndyCar and get this ship to shore, Mark Miles and company need to boldly plot a new course for this series and announce it to the world.
Shelve the aero kit debate for now. Lay out a timeline for a transition to a new, production-based engine formula for, say, 2015. This gives current manufacturers and team owners plenty of lead time to make necessary changes and gives new manufacturers the time needed to ramp up a new open-wheel program. It will also give Dallara time to adapt the DW12 to the idiosyncrasies of stressed versus non-stressed chassis design.
But should this plan be implemented, IndyCar must be sure not to leave any wiggle room, because many well-meaning owners can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to change.
IndyCar needs to become relevant to manufacturers again to have a hope of attracting them, and the cars and engines need to be opened up to allow real competition and innovation to return to the Speedway. Make IndyCar a showplace for relevant new technology, and chart a bold and innovative course for the future. It’s the only way to right the ship and regain fans.
Tags: Verizon IndyCar Series - Technical
good points on engines, I was all set to argue aero-kits. while I agree with you on engines, I still want aero-kits at the same time. Indycar has to do something to attract TV viewers and sponsors, something bigger and admittedly more expensive than they’ve been willing to do. And good luck getting more $$$ from owners.
If I had to choose between engines or aero-kits to encourage Indycar growth, I would choose engines. But I would not focus just on US based manufacturers. I think including European and Asian manufacturers will help build a more global fan base…this would be a good thing considering the globally diversity of the current Indycar drivers. Attracting additional manufacturers could also help bring new teams into the series….maybe a new “Dodge” or “Ford” partnered team?
The problem I see with everyone pining for aero-kits is that there is no guarantee that the cars will look significant different or that competition will be better…at least not enough to justify the expense. Car appearance seems to be the biggest arguement for why people think Indycar needs them. Take F1 for example….once you remove the paint from the car, most fans can not tell the difference between a Red Bull or McClaren car….yet the teams are free to develop body pieces within the sanctioning body guidelines….and the big teams sink large amounts of money into their development. They also don’t seem to make the racing any more competitive…just cause more separation between the have and have not teams.
I will readily agree with you that the needle will move more with the introduction of any engine formula that brings more than two engine manufacturers to the game (with their “more than two” associated marketing budgets, which is the key to getting the Series in front of more eyeballs), but the next engine formula is at least two years away and some number of dollars off that probably numbers well into the 8-digits (any new formula means more dollars spent). It’s true that car manufacturers ALL want to race stuff that can been seen as resembling what they roll down the production line, and that can been seen as being something different from every other manufacturer out there. That’s the whole ethos with the NASCAR Gen. 6 car that’s setting the stock car world a-twitter right this second, the reason that Audi and Toyota run the powertrains that they do at Le Mans and in the WEC, and the reason that any and all of the GrandAm manufacturers run what they run there (DP and GT classes, both). Heck, it’s the given reason that GM and Honda are in IndyCar now, as a supposed showcase for engines that might be/probably are on the way in a few years. For all of those reasons, I’m totally behind stock block engines, if IndyCar can get three or more engine manufacturers on board (not two or less, because that’s no better than what we’ve got now or what we had for the last six years, so the dollars outlaid would not be worth it).
However, you’ll notice that there’s an “if” in that last sentence. The manufacturers HAVE to be committed to such a formula, on a medium-term time frame (like at least for 4-5 years) and on a financial time frame (because they’re going to have to understand that engine costs to the teams can’t exceed $750k per year right this second, and that probably means that all the manufacturers are going to operate at a loss…not a disaster, if they can write that R&D and manufacturing loss off as a “marketing cost”, just something they have to understand up front). If all of those conditions can be met, let’s do it. I sincerely hope that the IndyCar higer ups start making phone calls to this end sometime in the next few months (though 2015 feels a little early to me at this point…2016 sounds more reasonable for an all-new spec, plus the DW12 would have had a 4-year product cycle by then, which feels about right).
In the meantime, what sticks in my craw about the aerokits is that it was a major selling point of the DW12 at launch (cast your mind way back to June 2010 for that), that kits have now been kicked down the road twice with no sign that we’re one day closer to seeing them than we were this time last year, and that they are a relatively cheap marketing opportunity for GM and Honda (and anybody else who wants to make a kit, if such a company exists). Oh, and they’re a cheap way for the teams to try to get a leg up on one another. Yes, cheap. The team owners claim that they’d cost a team in excess of $300k to outfit a whole team with optional kits that would no longer be optional once somebody tried one. Not true. Like the old days, when teams like Dick Simon’s team would buy a couple Buick stock blocks for one-offs at Indy, there’s nothing that said that the owners HAD to buy 6 kits. You buy one and try it. If it gives you a 0.1 second per lap advantage, great, you can consider outfitting the rest of your cars with it (in the meantime you can move aero bits between cars, should you blow an engine and have to move to a back-up, or if you want your other driver to try it out or something…that one kit is not tied to a single chassis or driver). If no advantage was found, well, racing’s expensive. That $65k sunk cost is the price of racing. Maybe you’ll have to go with a little cheaper proscuitto on your hospitality buffet for a few races, or put off buying that new $150,000 hauler that you had your eye on for a while. Meanwhile, the fans get something else to talk about, Popular Mechanics and other car mags get something to splash over a couple pages worth of the April issues (something we saw with the DW12 last year, but will get none of with nothing new on the tech front this year), and GM and Honda get something else to point at as a justification as why they race. And, again, the teams would only be absorbing a fraction of the cost of the kits, as the development would all be done by the manufacturers (the claim that they’d have to do further CFD or wind tunnel work on a new kit is specious, because the kit makers would already have done it…also, by this reasoning, they should all already be doing such work on the Dallara bodywork…are they?).
Interesting post, though, John. Sorry if my comment comes off a little rant-y. You hit on one of my very few pet peeves about the current state of IndyCar…
The Speedgeek- I definitely agree that the aero kits were a bill of sale used to make the spec car easy to swallow, which was then pulled out from underneath us at the 11th hour. Since the cars initial launch the powers that be at Indycar have allowed the owners to steer the ship in a negative way in my opinion.
redcar- I think this falls underneath the heading of Indycar needing to tell the owners what is going to happen for the good of the series, instead of constantly backing down. NASCAR is strong because it has strong leadership that decides what is best for the sport (in their opinion) and goes with it. If you don’t like it, tough. Indycar could use some of that going forward. Is an owner complaining over $65,000 really going to start a new series with no Indy 50 to lean upon? In think not. Better to have 20 good full time cars than 24 decent ones in my opinion.
Julie- I lime your idea, but I don’t want to see a team get too in bed with a manufacturer to be left holding the bag if said manufacturer leaves at some point. I may be in the minority, but I actually like the engine leases from the standpoint of keeping owners costs down while still allowing the manufacturer just as much advertising and tie in ability.
I agree that engines should remain the focus for the time being. I’m not sure of the wisdom of going to production-based engines, I tend to think those should stay in tintops (with the best development in GTs) and open wheel single seaters should have thoroughbred race engines to push the forefront of technology.
On the other hand, if you’re going production-based, maybe things should’ve moved toward a variant of the Global Race Engine concept if they wanted a road-relevant technology which isn’t hugely expensive (by usual racing standards).
Aero kits are a red herring. I was never a fan and people are getting their knickers in a twist I think not because they’re what people want, but because it was what was promised and the promise has been let down – again. No, the real goal aside from engine competition has to be chassis competition. Aero kits could defer chassis competition by anything up to ten years. We need to start thinking in terms of having alternative suppliers to try their luck against Dallara. I dare say they might lose but you never know, Reynard and Lola were both new kids on the block once and they became dominant. Of course if I’m IndyCar in the process of opening up competition I’d p*** off Dallara who just built a new factory in Indy at ‘our’ request… Not sure how you get around that other than to say, ‘well now you have an advantage’.
Pat W- I love crazy thouroughbred race engines as much as the next guy, but what I was saying was that many manufacturers are not thinking along those lines anymore. Ford has specifically said they won’t return to Indycar unless there is a return to production based engines. Production based engines can still be very wild given the right parameters, and they might attract more manufacturers in the process!
Technology Submission -Novel Rotary-Turbo-InFlow Tech – Featured Development
GEARTURBINE PROJECT
Atypical InFlow Thermodynamic
Technology Proposal Submission
Novel Fueled Motor Engine Type
*State of the art Innovative concept Top system Higher efficient percent. Have similar system of the Aeolipile Heron Steam device from Alexandria 10-70 AD. -New Form-Function Motor-Engine Device. Next Step, Epic Design Change, Broken-Seal Revelation. -Desirable Power-Plant Innovation.
YouTube; * Atypical New • GEARTURBINE / Retrodynamic = DextroRPM VS LevoInFlow + Ying Yang Thrust Way Type – Non Waste Looses
-This innovative concept consists of hull and core where are held all 8 bteps of the work-flow which make the concept functional. The core has several gears and turbines which are responsible for these 8 steps (5 of them are dedicated to the turbo stages). The first step is fuel compression, followed by 2 cold turbo levels. The fourth step is where the fuel starts burning – combustion stage, which creates thrust for the next, 5th step – thrust step, which provides power to the planetary gears and turbines and moves the system. This step is followed by two hot turbo steps and the circle is enclosed by the final 8th step – bigger turbine. All this motion in a retrodynamic circumstance effect, wich is plus higher RPM speed by self motion. The Reaction at front of the action.
*8-X/Y Thermodynamic CYCLE – Way Steps: 1)1-Compression / bigger 2)2-Turbo 1 cold 3)2-Turbo 2 cold 4)2-Combustion – circular motion flames / opposites 5)2-Thrust – single turbo & planetary gears / ying yang 6)2-Turbo 2 hot 7)2-Turbo 1 hot 8)1-Turbine / bigger
-With Retrodynamic Dextrogiro vs Levogiro Phenomenon Effect. / Rotor-RPM VS InFlow / front to front; “Collision-Interaction Type” – inflow vs blades-gear-move. Technical unique dynamic innovative motion mode. [Retrodynamic Reaction = When the inflow have more velocity the rotor have more RPM Acceleration, with high (XY Position) Momentum] Which the internal flow (and rotor) duplicate its speed, when activated being in a rotor (and inflow) with [inverse] opposite Turns. The Reaction at front of the action. A very strong Novel torque power concept.
-Non waste parasitic looses for; friction, cooling, lubrication & combustion.
-Shape-Mass + Rotary-Motion = Inertia-Dynamic / Form-Function Wide [Flat] Cylindrical shape + positive dynamic rotary mass = continue Inertia positive tendency motion. Kinetic Rotating Mass.
-Combustion 2Two continue circular [Rockets] flames. [ying yang] opposite one to the other. – With 2TWO very long distance INFLOW [inside propulsion] CONDUITS. -4 TURBOS Rotary Total Thrust-Power Regeneration Power System. -Mechanical direct 2two [Small] Planetary Gears at polar position. -Like the Ying Yang Symbol/Concept. -Wide out the Rotor circumference were have much more lever [HIGH Torque] POWER THRUST. -No blade erosion by sand & very low heat target signature profile. -3 points of power thrust; 1-flow way, 2-gear, 3-turbine. *Patent; Dic. 1991 IMPI Mexico #197187 All Rights Reserved. Carlos Barrera.