Engine Discussions are moving forward

[MDS]

http://www.indycar.com/news/?story_id=12577

Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet

[Scheckterfan54]

Interesting that all chassis will be dallara

[NickFalzone]

It would be nice to know what the 70% is that they've agreed upon.

[Chamoo]

Interesting that all chassis will be dallara

More dissapointing than anything. Why can't they atleast have two different chassis'? It would create better racing, and it would give us something to look forward to instead of seeing 33 of the same cars on the track.

Also, unless the Dallara is made in the USA, it will cost a boatload of money when the currency is taken into account.

Let Panoz get in on the act. They did a good job with the DP01. Not saying I want it to be revised, but it was a lovely car, and a whole lot cheaper than the Dallara is right now, and will ever be if they continue to be made in Italy.

However, it's good that engine manufacturers are getting back into the sport. It is going to bring more money to the table. I can't wait to see how many engine suppliers show up. Also, I can't wait to see how they divide the teams up. I don't think it would be fair to simply let whoever sign with whoever since they would just give the biggest money to the biggest teams. Maybe they can have a draft? That way Honda can pick up AGR if they are still available, without picking up every other top team.

[Bob Riebe]

Reminds me of Baghdad Bob who kept telling everyone the Iraquis were winning the war.

[Chamoo]

Reminds me of Baghdad Bob who kept telling everyone the Iraquis were winning the war.

Explain?

[Bob Riebe]

Explain?
Happy talk that means nothing.

[downtowndeco]

Happy talk that means nothing.

It means a lot that no one has said, "Thanks, but no thanks".

Will all five join the IRL? Probably not. But it would suprising if one or two didn't join Honda.

You know, it's funny, for years CC fans used to hold on to the thinnest of threads, rumours usually, of manufactures that were suppossedly interested in joining CC. I mean, nothing, no press releases, no meetings, nothing. And every year we'd here about who was going to start building engines for CCWS.

Here we have legitimate meetings that have gone farther than stage one. Official press releases. So far, so good. All five are coming back for the next round of discussions and by all accounts, making progress. Yet all you have to say is "Happy talk". It says a lot about which glasses you are looking through.

[Cart750hp]

You know, it's funny, for years CC fans used to hold on to the thinnest of threads, rumours usually, of manufactures that were suppossedly interested in joining CC. I mean, nothing, no press releases, no meetings, nothing. And every year we'd here about who was going to start building engines for CCWS.

Surprised? These guys were desperate then, imagine now. Their site is still up and read the titles of their thread under Dark-Side....nothing but hatred to IRL. Talking about Michael "Wacko" Jackson, this guy is nothing compare to these guys.

Care to ask them how's Champ Car doing now?

[MDS]

The only thing I think is really likely at this point his someone like Mazda badging a Cosworth engine. Given Cosworth's history with turbos it makes sense they'll be in the series. Toyota has hung onto Long Beach's naming rights, so maybe they're interested as well. I think three manufacters would be a massive improvement, but I think two is probably more realistic.

Anyone want to guess who the five are? My bet is: Honda, Mazda, Toyota, Chevy and Audi.

[billiaml]

I agree with your thoughts about Cosworth engines badged as Mazda -- like in the Atlantic series. Of course, if Toyota, got on boardit would be essentially the same as the old CART days.

Given GM's financial woes, I'm not sure @ Chevy. BMW, maybe? They have an open-wheel presence -- as well as manufacturing in the US.

I also agree about the single chassis manufacturer -- especially since I prefer the looks of the Panoz chassis over the Dallara's.

[Chamoo]

I also agree about the single chassis manufacturer -- especially since I prefer the looks of the Panoz chassis over the Dallara's.

I just think it will be a whole lot more exciting to watch a Dallara/BMW battling with a Panoz/Mazda, while Dan Wheldon in a Lola/Honda makes it three wide.

[Chris R]

Several engine manufactures or suppliers would be good - seems like with the current business model you need the factory $$ to make things work...

I think multiple chassis manufactures is just as important too - you need something that makes the cars look at least a little different....

History has shown us that different configurations can be competitive at the same time - Watson and Epperly roadsters were radically different but still pretty similar in speed.... An Offy, a Ford 4 cam, and a Novi were pretty radically different but they competed together with reasonable success....

[Chamoo]

I think multiple chassis manufactures is just as important too - you need something that makes the cars look at least a little different....


It's not just to give the perception that they aren't all the same car, even though that is something I find important.

Lola's, Panoz, Dallara's although all built around the same regulations, would each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Maybe on road courses, the Panoz would be faster straight line speed then the Lola, yet the Lola would be faster in the corners, while the Dallara is a balance of both. Those are the things that provide passing, and creates those battles we used to see alot of in CART. Or maybe if they go to the alternate tires, then the Dallara would work better with the softer compound where the Lola would work better with the harder compound. Multiple chassis manufacturers do nothing but good.

Also, why guarentee Dallara they are the sole supplier. If you want to go to the route of the single supplier (which I don't think is the right route), why not put it out to the lowest bidder. If they continue to build the Dallara's in Italy, it will be the end of alot of smaller teams since the exchange rate will drive the prices up.

[nigelred5]

I don't understand the single chassis either. Dallara and GForce (obviously now the Panoz) were usually competetive with each other when the IRL first spec'ed their original chassis. They basically gave a cost figure and said who's in? With the exchange rates, the Dallara's are at a serious cost disadvantage against a domestic chassis, UNLESS they have a large enough order for a large run as Panoz did. Dallara is a large operation as chassis manufacturers go, but Im in agreement with those that feel at minimum, we need two chassis to make for an interesting competetive series to participate in and watch as a fan and spectator.

Two chassis and three engine manufacturers allows a great number of possibilities. If we could get say Dallara, Panoz and Swift, to go along with engines from Honda, Ford/Mazda/Cosworth, and one or both of the German manufacturers, that would be awesome. I don't see Lola back in the fray but it would be good to see the marque again in Indycars.
That would also allow a championship for the manufacturers, which is often more important to them than the driver's championship in many forms of racing. I'd love to see a Ferrari/Dallara in Indycars, though I suspect they would use the Maserati or Alfa brands as rumoured before were they to get involved.

Who am I kiddin? Best scenario I realistically see is 1 slightly new chassis from Dallara and two engine manufacturers for 2011, and IMHO, that's not enough to make a difference to anyone.





I would assume that even if they lure multiple engine suppliers, we're probably looking at minimum a common ECU and engine architecture specs to control runaway development.

[dataman1]

If they continue to build the Dallara's in Italy, it will be the end of alot of smaller teams since the exchange rate will drive the prices up.

This is a really good statement. While many don't want an international series the US economy is heading down the toilet. The dollar is less valuable. Without international exposure and fan support there will be no pressure for Italians or any other country that produces ICS racing components to give good pricing. In their minds it is time to reap profits from the ugly Americans (IMO). It is time to either think internationally with races overseas or go the route of "buy American". I don't believe you can have both sides until the US dollar is strong again.

[Rex Monaco]

Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet

It does to me.


August 23, 2008

More than a dozen manufacturers attended the June meeting, and Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit.



September 18, 2008

"We had a couple of good days of meetings with (five) manufacturers back in town in a continuation of the process begun in late June with the initial roundtable," said Brian Barnhart

[Chamoo]

It does to me.


August 23, 2008

More than a dozen manufacturers attended the June meeting, and Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit.



September 18, 2008

"We had a couple of good days of meetings with (five) manufacturers back in town in a continuation of the process begun in late June with the initial roundtable," said Brian Barnhart

He also stated that the rebuild shops weren't there, and I assume that would include Illmor and Judd and Cosworth. I would think that these five manufacturers are actually manufacturers.

As for the chassis, I also think you can run Dallara from Italy if there are multiple chassis' since everyone will have to keep the costs as low as possible to get teams to sign with them. This would atleast force Dallara to lower the price.

[garyshell]

Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet


It does to me.


August 23, 2008

More than a dozen manufacturers attended the June meeting, and Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit.



September 18, 2008

"We had a couple of good days of meetings with (five) manufacturers back in town in a continuation of the process begun in late June with the initial roundtable," said Brian Barnhart


Huh? In the first article he says he expects three or four plus Honda to be interested. In the second it states that five came back to the table. So how is that constiuted as anyone backing out? It only says that Brian was correct in his initial assesment that five of the inital dozen would want to play. And five now continued to show that continued interest. The other seven didn't drop out, they never stepped in. There is a difference.

Gary

[garyshell]

I'd like to see multiple chassis and engines. But it has to be done so we don't go back to the same mistakes that relying on manufacturers presented in the past.

How about this for an idea. Any manufacturer (chassis or engine) that wants to meet the specs and play can, but there is a fixed price cap on the engine and chassis. And they must agree to supply x% of the field.

That way they can have all the engineering battles they want but not with the escalating costs being passed on to the teams.

Donning my asbestos suit, cause I am sure someone from one side or the other is gonna toss a Molotov cocktail on this idea. :hot: :angryfire :grenade:

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

Huh? In the first article he says he expects three or four plus Honda to be interested. In the second it states that five came back to the table. So how is that constiuted as anyone backing out? It only says that Brian was correct in his initial assesment that five of the inital dozen would want to play. And five now continued to show that continued interest. The other seven didn't drop out, they never stepped in. There is a difference.

Gary

I see, since the bar was set low this doesn't really mean that 7 manufacturers have dropped out of these discussions.

I suppose that is one way to spin it.

[Chamoo]

I see, since the bar was set low this doesn't really mean that 7 manufacturers have dropped out of these discussions.

I suppose that is one way to spin it.

Another way to spin it is the way you spin everything, negative.

The bar wasn't set low. The bar is already as low as it goes right now, at one (Honda). Any step forward can't be seen as setting the bar low.

[garyshell]

I see, since the bar was set low this doesn't really mean that 7 manufacturers have dropped out of these discussions.

I suppose that is one way to spin it.

You are the one spinning this, not me. Just because 12 folks went to the inital meeting does not mean that 12 folks entered into the discussion. Only that they were interested in the initial presentation. You are spinning this into 12 manufacturers entering into discussions and then seven backing out. The TRUTH is 12 came to hear the proposal. Five stuck around to enter into discusions and none of them left. The seven others never backed out because they never became part of the discussions in the first place.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet

I responded to this statement. Based on the information we have been provided, I beleive that this statement is false.

The first meeting was claimed to have 12 manufacturers, with no distinction between engine builders or automakers made.

This meeting is claiming that 5 manufacturers showed up, again no distinction made if they are engine builders or automakers.

I'm sorry if I won't bend my rules of reading comprehension to fit into someone elses spinning of the currently known facts.

If this is viewed as negative by some, then so be it. But the facts as currently known cannot support the OP's statement that it "Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet".

This is not a comment on the IRL. This is a comment on the OP original statement. Period.

[Rex Monaco]

You are the one spinning this, not me. Just because 12 folks went to the inital meeting does not mean that 12 folks entered into the discussion. Only that they were interested in the initial presentation. You are spinning this into 12 manufacturers entering into discussions and then seven backing out. The TRUTH is 12 came to hear the proposal. Five stuck around to enter into discusions and none of them left. The seven others never backed out because they never became part of the discussions in the first place.

Gary

Ok let me get your version straight.

12 manufacturers showed up in June to hear, not discuss, an engine proposal. 5 decided they liked the proposal and returned in September to have discussions.

Based on this version, one can now support the claim that 7 manufacturers have not dropped out of discussions because the second meeting, is really the first discussion.

And the second meeting (or the first discussion), happened to have the 3 or 4 + Honda that was expected to participate when the first meeting (which was not a discussion) was announced. So therefore, nobody has really dropped out of the discussions yet.

Is this authorized version of the events?

[Chamoo]

This meeting is claiming that 5 manufacturers showed up, again no distinction made if they are engine builders or automakers.

Read the article, it says engine builders were not included.

[garyshell]

Ok let me get your version straight.

12 manufacturers showed up in June to hear, not discuss, an engine proposal. 5 decided they liked the proposal and returned in September to have discussions.

Based on this version, one can now support the claim that 7 manufacturers have not dropped out of discussions because the second meeting, is really the first discussion.

And the second meeting (or the first discussion), happened to have the 3 or 4 + Honda that was expected to participate when the first meeting (which was not a discussion) was announced. So therefore, nobody has really dropped out of the discussions yet.

Is this authorized version of the events?


It may not be the offical version, but it sure as hell is how I read what was stated. ICS set the expecatations in the first message you quoted that only 5 of the inital 12 would show any interest beyond the first presentation.

You can call the other seven as "drop outs" if you want. I see them as never intersted once they saw the inital ICS proposal. I suggest that those that left immediately after the first meeting were never any part of "discussions".

Have you ever attended an RFP meeting? Lots of vendors show up initially. Everyone walks away with a written RFP and ponder it. Some continue on after that and some never enter into any subsequent discussions. (Some never intended to do anything anyway and were there for the free lunch.)

I assumed that this was the same sort of meeting, especially since the ICS themselves gave the number of folks they expected to move on in the discussions.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

It may not be the offical version, but it sure as hell is how I read what was stated.

My reading of it, is that this was the second round table discussion.

August 22, 2008
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080823/SPORTS0107/808230418/1004/SPORTS
IRL presidents Brian Barnhart and Terry Angstadt said they expect auto manufacturers interested in participating in the series to embrace this decision because it was their consensus at a meeting in June.
...
The IRL's next roundtable meeting will be Sept. 16-17 at the Speedway. The event, like the initial one in June, will be closed to the public.

August 25, 2008
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/FREE/308189881/1531/FREE
A decision is to be made after Indy Racing League officials hold their next roundtable meeting with industry leaders Sept. 16-17 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway.
...
The IRL's first meeting with potential engine manufacturers brought more than a dozen companies to the discussion.
...
Distribution goals will be a key discussion point at the September meeting, as will costs. Expenses must be controlled so manufacturers can justify the venture.

September 17, 2008
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/SPORTS/809180491/1287/SPORTS
Five auto manufacturers attended the IndyCar Series' latest round of engine meetings that concluded Wednesday, Indy Racing League officials said.
...
The next round of meetings is planned for next month, he said.

[Rex Monaco]

Read the article, it says engine builders were not included.

Actually it stated that it "did not include engine rebuild shop representatives".

Are race engineering companies such as Cosworth and Illmor really considered engine rebuild shops? Haven't they provided teams with their own branded engines in the past?

[MDS]

I responded to this statement. Based on the information we have been provided, I beleive that this statement is false.

The first meeting was claimed to have 12 manufacturers, with no distinction between engine builders or automakers made.

This meeting is claiming that 5 manufacturers showed up, again no distinction made if they are engine builders or automakers.

I'm sorry if I won't bend my rules of reading comprehension to fit into someone elses spinning of the currently known facts.

If this is viewed as negative by some, then so be it. But the facts as currently known cannot support the OP's statement that it "Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet".

This is not a comment on the IRL. This is a comment on the OP original statement. Period.

Uh, no, the facts do support my comment. Barnhart said he expected there to be three to four interested parties in addition to Honda after the initial round of meetings. What I took that to mean at the time, and still do, is out of the original 12 four new parties expressed interest. The fact that five manufactures are still participating means that Honda and the other four that expressed interest, possibly a combination manfacturers and builders, are still interested.

Had Barnhart said six were intered and five had shown up then someone would have dropped out. What happened was 12 parties showed up, five of those parties expresed interest and five of them are continuing to the next stage. No one has dropped out. You can't consider that all 12 were seriously interested, its just not how these things work.

[Rex Monaco]

Barnhart said he expected there to be three to four interested parties in addition to Honda after the initial round of meetings.

That's not the quote I find. The quotes that I have found point to 3 or 4 committing to the series, not to the discussions. Seriously, what commitment would be required to sit down at a table for a discussion?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/FREE/308189881/1531/FREE
Barnhart expects no more than "three or four" to be involved when the new configuration hits the track, but Honda, the league's only current supplier, would be happy to have competition.

[Rex Monaco]

You can't consider that all 12 were seriously interested, its just not how these things work.

If that's how these things work, then we can't assume that all 5 of those at the second meeting are seriously interested either, can we?

[Chamoo]

Why don't you take your negativism elsewhere, I don't think it's wanted here.

[Rex Monaco]

Why don't you take your negativism elsewhere, I don't think it's wanted here.

I respectfully decline to follow your suggestion. If you don't like my opinion, then excercise some self-control and ignore it.

[Jag_Warrior]

In the first round, there were twelve participating engine related companies: Honda, Mazda, Fiat Auto, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Chevrolet, Ilmor, Cosworth, Judd, AER and Speedway Engines.

If indeed Cosworth, Ilmor, Judd, AER and Speedway Engines are all being referred to as "rebuild shops", then of the seven automotive OEM's that participated in the first round, two did not participate in this latest round.

Without getting into a game of semantics, it will be interesting to find out which companies are still involved. And IMO, it would make more sense to have a Cosworth or Ilmor participating, since they would actually be in a position to design and manufacture the engine, rather than just write a check to have it built. For example, neither Mazda nor Chevrolet is in a position to design and build a formula car engine. But in theory, either could write a check to Cosworth, Ilmor or AER to have one built. I don't know who was there and who was not. But it seems that if the "rebuild shops" were not there... Houston, we have a problem.

I don't think it's worth guessing what the latest meeting means until more details are released (or leaked).

[Jag_Warrior]

You know, it's funny, for years CC fans used to hold on to the thinnest of threads, rumours usually, of manufactures that were suppossedly interested in joining CC. I mean, nothing, no press releases, no meetings, nothing. And every year we'd here about who was going to start building engines for CCWS.

Not to get into a tit for tat, but I'm sure you recall the BMW and Ferrari rumors that IRL fans pushed as well.

But yes, it's better to call a meeting and have representatives attend, than to not even schedule a meeting... which is pretty much what Champ Car did in its final seasons.

Where this is taking on a rose colored glass hue is on certain other boards, where some posters are dreaming that Porsche is as good as in (double super secret Penske connection), and/or the ACO and the IRL are going to share a common engine formula by 2011.

However it works out, no argument from me that 3 would be better than 2, or 2 would be better than 1. That's assuming that any new players would actually activate some sponsorship behind an engine supply.

[Rex Monaco]

In the first round, there were twelve participating engine related companies: Honda, Mazda, Fiat Auto, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Chevrolet, Ilmor, Cosworth, Judd, AER and Speedway Engines.

If indeed Cosworth, Ilmor, Judd, AER and Speedway Engines are all being referred to as "rebuild shops", then of the seven automotive OEM's that participated in the first round, two did not participate in this latest round.

Without getting into a game of semantics, it will be interesting to find out which companies are still involved. And IMO, it would make more sense to have a Cosworth or Ilmor participating, since they would actually be in a position to design and manufacture the engine, rather than just write a check to have it built. For example, neither Mazda nor Chevrolet is in a position to design and build a formula car engine. But in theory, either could write a check to Cosworth, Ilmor or AER to have one built. I don't know who was there and who was not. But it seems that if the "rebuild shops" were not there... Houston, we have a problem.

I don't think it's worth guessing what the latest meeting means until more details are released (or leaked).

Very good post.

[MDS]

If that's how these things work, then we can't assume that all 5 of those at the second meeting are seriously interested either, can we?

Give yourself a gold star. Back when I was with Arciero we used always start with four or five sponsors who would go through rounds of meeting, express interest of being involved in various capacities and we would be lucky if one decided to sign on as an associate. Its just how corporates work. They pay attention long enough to know if its a good deal for them. I would think getting five out of 12 to spend their own money on initial R&D, if that is in fact what happened, would be a success

Without knowing if this was the manufactures or meeting of the builders or both we can't really judge the level of interest, but I know for a fact there is no way four new manufactures are going to enter the series. I would a massively improbable home run for the IRL and things like that don't tend to happen that quickly. I think the IRL will pick up Mazda and possibly one more manufacture, but even two would be a huge lift.

[Rex Monaco]

...the ACO and the IRL are going to share a common engine formula by 2011.

I would think that sharing a common engine formula with another series would be the best way to contain costs, or at least spread development costs out.

And I beleive the ACO is revising their rules to require production based engines, something the IRL could accept.

It's far fetched to be sure, but not that far fetched for an organization that is forward looking to at least make the proposal.

[Rex Monaco]

Give yourself a gold star.

Why thank you, that's the 5th one this week!

[nigelred5]

Anyone consider that there may be some significant sponsorship activation requirements tied to the engine formula regs? Call them re-build shops or race engineering firms as you will, they don't bring a big check to the table with them unless they are tied to an Automobile Manufacturer.

We have no idea WHAT the discussions were this go-round. Could this have been a meeting distinctly about the marketing aspects of the formula? About technology relevant to the Automobile manufacturers on road products? Face it, the whole reason for a new engine formula is to lure another Automobile manufacturer and their marketing efforts. Honda wants someone to play with or they just as well should call it the World Series by Honda.

One could also pare the original list if you consider that Audi/VW and Porsche are essentially one in the same from the financial side. There's no doubt in my mind that group only wants to consider participation if it's a turbo charged/alternatively fuelled engine formula. No manufacturer in the world sells more turbocharged and/or diesel powered vehicles. Which brand would they choose to use in the US? Either way the engines would likely come from the same minds. I'm just not sure that anyone in that group is a big open wheel fan. Other than grass roots level Formula Vee and F3, They just don't do open wheel racing. More than one head of that group and the Porsche family has spoken as it's a waste of money to them, particularly F1.

I seriously doubt Fiat and Chevrolet were there for anything more than lunch. The IRL doesn't fit the image for Ferrari or Mazerati, and Chevy needs to take in all the free meals they can get. GM and Ford simply don't have the cash to play. I'd like to think that BMW was seriously interested as they have a significant open wheel ladder program, as does Mazda.


Honda, Toyota, Mazda, VWAG and BMW would be my guess for the parties at the table this week.

[garyshell]

It does to me.


August 23, 2008

More than a dozen manufacturers attended the June meeting, and Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit.



September 18, 2008

"We had a couple of good days of meetings with (five) manufacturers back in town in a continuation of the process begun in late June with the initial roundtable," said Brian Barnhart


Barnhart said he expected there to be three to four interested parties in addition to Honda after the initial round of meetings.


That's not the quote I find. The quotes that I have found point to 3 or 4 committing to the series, not to the discussions. Seriously, what commitment would be required to sit down at a table for a discussion?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/FREE/308189881/1531/FREE
Barnhart expects no more than "three or four" to be involved when the new configuration hits the track, but Honda, the league's only current supplier, would be happy to have competition.


Revisionist history alert!

Excuse me Rex, but did you or did you not post the first quote above? And does it or does it not say "Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit."

Your original post is what I and others have based our comments on. If you now want to trot out a different version of the same quote so be it.

Gary

[garyshell]

If that's how these things work, then we can't assume that all 5 of those at the second meeting are seriously interested either, can we?


Like I asked before have you EVER been to an RFP (request for proposal) meeting? Lot's of folks show up, hear the pitch, take the paperwork and muddle their response. Some, in this case 5, respond while others never return. You can be pretty sure that the folks who stick around for the second meeting are the ones who are serious, but that's no guarantee that they will continue on.


I don't quite understand what the point of your continued argument really is. You keep trying to spin this as if all 12 of the original participants was interested. How would you possibly know that? And if you don't, the entire premise on which you base your "doom and gloom" pronouncement that the ICS has had seven manufacturers drop out of the talks, quite simply falls apart.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

Revisionist history alert!

Excuse me Rex, but did you or did you not post the first quote above? And does it or does it not say "Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit."

Your original post is what I and others have based our comments on. If you now want to trot out a different version of the same quote so be it.

Gary

Please show me the quote where Barhart says, "I expect "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit."

It does not exist anywhere, not in my post and not in the Indystar or Autoweek article. The only thing quoted is "three or four".

What you mistakingly refer to as a "quote", is a paraphrase of what Barnhart has said. This is why there are no quotation marks in any of the articles I have read on the subject.

And then from this parahprase you made the assumption that the word commit refered to the discussions, and not the series.

But look at the first paraphrase, "he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit."

First he references Honda as a participant, then he mentions serious interest and then commit.

Why would anyone assume that 'commit' meant manufacturers would show serious interest and commit to discussions, when participation was the first half of the paraphrase?

And lastly, it's not my responsibility to ensure you are informed to debate these issues. That's your responsibility. If you don't have Google sending you this news as it breaks, then don't look to me for any help.

I will and have posted what I feel is 'new' information. But I am not going to post every link that I read, just because it might shed more light and help people understand what Barnhart said, until it becomes clear that people have misinterpreted what Barnhart said.

Call the revisionist history if you like. It doesn't come close to fitting the definition. But this is a free country, and you are free to be wrong.

[Jag_Warrior]

Anyone consider that there may be some significant sponsorship activation requirements tied to the engine formula regs? Call them re-build shops or race engineering firms as you will, they don't bring a big check to the table with them unless they are tied to an Automobile Manufacturer.

We have no idea WHAT the discussions were this go-round. Could this have been a meeting distinctly about the marketing aspects of the formula? About technology relevant to the Automobile manufacturers on road products? Face it, the whole reason for a new engine formula is to lure another Automobile manufacturer and their marketing efforts. Honda wants someone to play with or they just as well should call it the World Series by Honda.

One could also pare the original list if you consider that Audi/VW and Porsche are essentially one in the same from the financial side. There's no doubt in my mind that group only wants to consider participation if it's a turbo charged/alternatively fuelled engine formula. No manufacturer in the world sells more turbocharged and/or diesel powered vehicles. Which brand would they choose to use in the US? Either way the engines would likely come from the same minds. I'm just not sure that anyone in that group is a big open wheel fan. Other than grass roots level Formula Vee and F3, They just don't do open wheel racing. More than one head of that group and the Porsche family has spoken as it's a waste of money to them, particularly F1.

I seriously doubt Fiat and Chevrolet were there for anything more than lunch. The IRL doesn't fit the image for Ferrari or Mazerati, and Chevy needs to take in all the free meals they can get. GM and Ford simply don't have the cash to play. I'd like to think that BMW was seriously interested as they have a significant open wheel ladder program, as does Mazda.


Honda, Toyota, Mazda, VWAG and BMW would be my guess for the parties at the table this week.

No one from Toyota, Porsche or Ferrari has attended any of these meetings, as far as I know. I understand your point about Porsche and VAG, but they're not under one umbrella yet. But it was curious how Audi and Volkswagen were listed separately in the initial press release. Toyota has expressed no interest in returning to AOWR. Ferrari is partially owned by Fiat Group, not Fiat Auto. Ferrari is run autonomously and has never mentioned an AOWR program. It was Fiat Auto (Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Lancia, etc.) that attended one or more of the meetings. My guess is that was to see what sort of marketing opportunity there might be in North America to promote the return of Alfa Romeo, which last I heard was due for 2010/11.

I agree that part of the reason some may have chosen not to return is because of activation requirements. GM, for example, is looking to cut motorsports programs, not expand them. And with the global financial markets looking worse and not better, maybe some are pulling their toe back from the water.

[Rex Monaco]

I don't quite understand what the point of your continued argument really is.


Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet.

It does to me.

If indeed Cosworth, Ilmor, Judd, AER and Speedway Engines are all being referred to as "rebuild shops", then of the seven automotive OEM's that participated in the first round, two did not participate in this latest round.


And it's you who is continuing this argument.

As far as I'm concerned, 2-12 manufacturers depending on how you want to define manufacturers who alledgedly participated in what was clearly being reported as a round table discussion in June did not participate in what is being reported as the latest round table discussion.

That was my only point. I beleive that the facts as we currently know them, does not support "Doesn't sound like anyone is dropping out yet".

You want to argue that the facts support this statement based on what I beleive is your misreading of what has been reported.

And based on what I beleive is your misreading of these facts, I contend that nobody needs to commit to anything right now. They will only need to commit to building engines for a field of 24. These meetings are to determine what they will be commiting to build in the future.

Some of you can call that negative if you like. But while I enjoyed the movie Pollyanna, I try to base my opinion on the facts as they present themselves.

And my opinion as expressed in this thread means nothing more than I beleive based on the facts as we know them, that the OP was wrong in his statement, which in no way should be contrued as a wholesale indictment against Indycar or TG.

[garyshell]

Please show me the quote where Barhart says, "I expect "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit."

Message number 17 in this thread is what started the discussion. It was YOUR message. Now you say you were paraphrasing an article and want to backtrack on YOUR original characterization of the article. So be it. Sorry I trusted you original message. It will be the LAST time I trust anything you post. Because obviously you will want to come back and restate things if the discussion doesn't go your way.


It does not exist anywhere, not in my post and not in the Indystar or Autoweek article. The only thing quoted is "three or four".
What you mistakingly refer to as a "quote", is a paraphrase of what Barnhart has said. This is why there are no quotation marks in any of the articles I have read on the subject.

Then why the hell did you say it? It sure looked like you were quoting complete with a date line. Go back and look at message 17 and tell me it does not appear YOU were quoting an article. How are we supposed to know this wasn't a direct quote? Because it was missing the quote marks? Oh, ok I see we need to look up any thing you "paraphrase" to be sure you aren't twisting words. Thanks, I get it now.


And then from this paraphrase you made the assumption that the word commit refereed to the discussions, and not the series.

But look at the first paraphrase, "he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit."

First he references Honda as a participant, then he mentions serious interest and then commit.

Why would anyone assume that 'commit' meant manufacturers would show serious interest and commit to discussions, when participation was the first half of the paraphrase?


Oh, I don't know maybe because I have participated in RFP meetings before and know that there are folks who show up for the free meal, others marginally interested, and still others who MIGHT be interested but immediately find out otherwise. And only a small number ever advance to round two.


And lastly, it's not my responsibility to ensure you are informed to debate these issues. That's your responsibility. If you don't have Google sending you this news as it breaks, then don't look to me for any help.

I've learned my lesson, never trust a single "quote" or paraphrased interpretation from you, ever again. How stupid of me to have trusted what for all intents and purposes appeared to be a quote.


I will and have posted what I feel is 'new' information. But I am not going to post every link that I read, just because it might shed more light and help people understand what Barnhart said, until it becomes clear that people have misinterpreted what Barnhart said.

Call the revisionist history if you like. It doesn't come close to fitting the definition. But this is a free country, and you are free to be wrong.

And I will continue to call it revisionist history when you paraphrase something one way and then latter disavow that paraphrasing and come up with a new interpretation. And I will now look up anything you attribute to someone else, you have made the need to do that abundantly clear.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

Revisionist history alert!


And lastly, how could you honestly even attempt to label this revisionist history, when the Autoweek article was written August 25th?

That would be enough for it to be considered actual history in the rest of the world.

For you own sake, try leaving the hyperbole aside next time. It diminishes any argument you think you have.

[garyshell]

And lastly, how could you honestly even attempt to label this revisionist history, when the Autoweek article was written August 25th?

That would be enough for it to be considered actual history in the rest of the world.

For you own sake, try leaving the hyperbole aside next time. It diminishes any argument you think you have.


The revisionist history alert was about YOUR two versions of the same story. It had nothing to do with Autoweek.

We're done. You can call the 12-7-5 participants whatever you want, I really don't care any more.

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

Message number 17 in this thread is what started the discussion. It was YOUR message. Now you say you were paraphrasing an article and want to backtrack on YOUR original characterization of the article. So be it. Sorry I trusted you original message. It will be the LAST time I trust anything you post. Because obviously you will want to come back and restate things if the discussion doesn't go your way.



Then why the hell did you say it? It sure looked like you were quoting complete with a date line. Go back and look at message 17 and tell me it does not appear YOU were quoting an article. How are we supposed to know this wasn't a direct quote? Because it was missing the quote marks? Oh, ok I see we need to look up any thing you "paraphrase" to be sure you aren't twisting words. Thanks, I get it now.




Oh, I don't know maybe because I have participated in RFP meetings before and know that there are folks who show up for the free meal, others marginally interested, and still others who MIGHT be interested but immediately find out otherwise. And only a small number ever advance to round two.



I've learned my lesson, never trust a single "quote" or paraphrased interpretation from you, ever again. How stupid of me to have trusted what for all intents and purposes appeared to be a quote.



And I will continue to call it revisionist history when you paraphrase something one way and then latter disavow that paraphrasing and come up with a new interpretation. And I will now look up anything you attribute to someone else, you have made the need to do that abundantly clear.

Gary

I don't even know what you are talking about now. And I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. How did we end up with this nonsense?

[Chris R]

All of this talk over first 12 "manufacturers" and now "only" 5 - both those numbers are significantly better than 1!!

At its engine competitive height CART only had 4 serious manufacturers at once and I don't think it ever had more than 3 at a time "all in" - it seems like someone was always just dabbling or just starting or winding up....

NASCAR only had 2 manufacturers for many years and still only has 4.

If the IRL ends up with 2 they are doing ok in my book.

FWIW I think whoever said Mazda and Honda would be the final two I think they are probably right with an outside chance of VW since VW has some pretty serious US sales goals to meet..... Actually those three manufacturers would be a nearly perfect fit of AOWR demographics - more educated higher end of the true middle class, somewhat sophisticated consumers but not super wealthy....

Going by the same measure - they need to get LL Bean, Apple Computers, Panera, and similar retailers involved in the series.....

[Rex Monaco]

The revisionist history alert was about YOUR two versions of the same story.

This is factually incorrect. All the information to refute this statment is in this thread.

If an argument was not your top priority, then you would have read what I posted, followed the links I referenced and you would not have made this false statement.

[Rex Monaco]

Now you say you were paraphrasing an article and want to backtrack on YOUR original characterization of the article.

I said no such thing. I did no such thing. The articles were posted as written by the reporters. It was the reporters who made the paraphrases of Barnhart.



Go back and look at message 17 and tell me it does not appear YOU were quoting an article.

I was quoting the article. The article was not quoting Barnhart. Get it?



Oh, ok I see we need to look up any thing you "paraphrase" to be sure you aren't twisting words.

I paraphrased nothing. I quoted the article, which was a paraphrase of Barnhart.



How stupid of me to have trusted what for all intents and purposes appeared to be a quote.

Stupid of you yes, but for other reasons.



And I will now look up anything you attribute to someone else, you have made the need to do that abundantly clear.

And had you indeed clicked the links that I provided, you would have saved yourself from making this embarrassing post.

[Rex Monaco]

If the IRL ends up with 2 they are doing ok in my book.

And that would be significant progress in my book.

[Rex Monaco]

The IRL doesn't fit the image for...Mazerati...

Or for Maserati!

[Rex Monaco]

It does to me.


August 23, 2008

More than a dozen manufacturers attended the June meeting, and Barnhart has said he expects "three or four," including Honda, the only current participating manufacturer, to show serious interest and perhaps commit.



September 18, 2008

"We had a couple of good days of meetings with (five) manufacturers back in town in a continuation of the process begun in late June with the initial roundtable," said Brian Barnhart

And let's add this quote of an article (which needs to be explained is itself a paraphrase of Barnhart) to the record:

6/25/08
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/FREE/338903837/1553/indyracingleaguenews
Brian Barnhart, the IRL's president of competition, said there were up to 15 companies represented--he estimated nine auto manufacturers and six engine builders--and all seemed interested and in agreement on a direction the league should consider for its engine package for the 2011 season and beyond.

So between 2-10 manufacturers have dropped out of the discussions, depending on your definition of manufacturer, how many you beleive first attended and your definition of 'commit'.

[Jag_Warrior]

All of this talk over first 12 "manufacturers" and now "only" 5 - both those numbers are significantly better than 1!!

Hey, I resemble that remark.^ :D

However it works out, no argument from me that 3 would be better than 2, or 2 would be better than 1. That's assuming that any new players would actually activate some sponsorship behind an engine supply.



At its engine competitive height CART only had 4 serious manufacturers at once and I don't think it ever had more than 3 at a time "all in" - it seems like someone was always just dabbling or just starting or winding up....

NASCAR only had 2 manufacturers for many years and still only has 4.

If the IRL ends up with 2 they are doing ok in my book.

We're focusing on numbers and names because that's all the information we have at this time. But more than that, I think what's important is the level of enthusiasm (meaning $) that any new manufacturers would bring. Until CART continued to sit on its hands over a new engine formula, all four engine manufacturers were as "all in" as they were going to get. Ford never approached the level of support that Honda and Toyota got to. Mercedes was the one that seemed most disappointed that a new formula (and a new approach) couldn't be decided on... and left. When NASCAR had two (Chevy and Ford), both were "all in" to the tune of hundreds of millions in support to teams and the series. While the IRL doesn't currently have the draw to bring in that level of support, it should be able to get a higher level of engine partner support than say, Grand Am.



FWIW I think whoever said Mazda and Honda would be the final two I think they are probably right with an outside chance of VW since VW has some pretty serious US sales goals to meet..... Actually those three manufacturers would be a nearly perfect fit of AOWR demographics - more educated higher end of the true middle class, somewhat sophisticated consumers but not super wealthy....

Very good points. BMW would be a much higher profile partner than Mazda, but I don't see BMW signing on. Could be wrong. But they made a hard pass on the IRL years ago, and things were better then than now.



Going by the same measure - they need to get LL Bean, Apple Computers, Panera, and similar retailers involved in the series.....

This is why it is so important to keep costs down. As we all know, it is dangerous business to totally rely on engine manufacturers to foot the majority of the bill for running a team. There has to be healthy independent sponsorship longer term, or there'll be a need for ride-buyers, should an OEM leave. Back when Andy Evans was involved with (ripping apart) IMSA, there was some Microsoft money floating around. He was an FOB ("Friend of Bill"). I don't know about Apple or LL Bean, but I understand your point. The current economic situation aside, there might be quite a few interested sponsors... IF the price is right (and realistic).

[nigelred5]

Or for Maserati!

That's what happens when I'm used to auto spell-check on most everywhere else I type ;)

[Marshall]

I seriously doubt Fiat and Chevrolet were there for anything more than lunch. The IRL doesn't fit the image for Ferrari or Mazerati



I'm not sure - aren't Alfa returning to the US market?

Could provide valuable recognition for the brand.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm not sure - aren't Alfa returning to the US market?

Could provide valuable recognition for the brand.

As of last week, Alfa Romeo (Fiat Auto) was still targeting a 2010 return to the U.S. A prototype SUV has already been built. That's where the Chrysler and BMW connections come into play.

Of the brands either entering or ramping up a U.S. presence, the two that most turn me on are Alfa and VW. Alfa has a coupe called the Brera. From what I've seen, it's sex on wheels. And VW has a coupe which uses the old Scirocco name on a new face and platform: a sharp little hatch with Audi styling cues, though a bit light on power. I think the Brera is destined for the U.S. market. The Scirocco I'm not sure about.

A serious motorsports program would help both, IMO.

[nigelred5]

Last I read that was a big negatory on the Scirocco coming to the US. The weak dollar kills the price point and VW wouldn't make any money. They're sticking with the Chrysler designed minivan for US sales.

[Jag_Warrior]

Bummer. :( I guess there's no chance they could build it at the new Chattanooga plant? Double bummer. Even for a daily driver, it seemed a bit light on horsepower. But I still hoped to see it here.

The Brera on the other hand... :s mokin: If it doesn't turn out to have too much F(ix)I(t)A(gain)T(ony) in it, I could see that as a future purchase.

[nigelred5]

What I've read is the new US plant is being configured to build Jettas and it's derivatives, Which may include the Tiguan. Unfortunately the Scirocco is based on the Eos which is only built in Spain, so I'm not hopeful. I'm sure power would be available in the future. The way VW designs their cars, ther is lots of cross over of drive trains and performance parts. Unfortunately, we usually get crap for engine choice in the states.
Those damn Brooke shields commercials have my wife wanting one of the Routan minivans. I'd love to see a Westie version of it for race weekends. I haven't looked at them closely, but I could swear they even have a chrysler engine from the specs and displacement. Might end up being cheaaper than the average VW.

I'd love to see them involved at Indy. Their euros will buy a lot lately, but I'm not hopeful.

[billiaml]

I just think it will be a whole lot more exciting to watch a Dallara/BMW battling with a Panoz/Mazda, while Dan Wheldon in a Lola/Honda makes it three wide.

It certainly would! :)