Barnhart getting a Dallara kickback?

[bennybigb]

Why would the IRL continue sticking with the manufacture of the world's ugliest race car?

I think Barnhart must be getting a kickback from the Dallara company, otherwise there is no reason not to send the business to an American company. After all, the IRL was created to be an all American racing series.

[shazbot]

Why would the IRL continue sticking with the manufacture of the world's ugliest race car?

I think Barnhart must be getting a kickback from the Dallara company, otherwise there is no reason not to send the business to an American company. After all, the IRL was created to be an all American racing series.

Which American company? Swift maybe. Elan/Panoz barely exists.

[bennybigb]

Yes, Swift. The Swift Formula Nippon car would be a great option. Panoz could build something as well, the Super League car would also be a good platform.

[ykiki]

A couple of days ago, the IRL stated this in their chassis criteria...

American-made: The new chassis must be built in the U.S., preferably at an Indiana-based facility.

Does this mean we'll be seeing Dallara with a factory in Indiana, or perhaps the door will open for Swift?

http://www.indycar.com/news/?story_id=15726

[spiritone]

Check out marshall pruett's column in speed. He has a good take on barnhart's efforts to kill ben bowbey's idea.

[indycool]

First of all, it's Bowlby.

Second, Barnhart getting a kickback is ridiculous.

Third, Ken Anderson was a top-flight engineer. Still is. He gave us the Falcon. The Bowlby design has never been built, tested or run anywhere. This is a time for evolution, not revolution.

[garyshell]

First of all, it's Bowlby.

Second, Barnhart getting a kickback is ridiculous.

Third, Ken Anderson was a top-flight engineer. Still is. He gave us the Falcon. The Bowlby design has never been built, tested or run anywhere. This is a time for evolution, not revolution.


IC! Where ya been??? I agree with all of the above EXCEPT the last bit. It is high time for revolution in the look of the car. It would be the best way to garner some excitement from the paying public.

Gary

[Wilf]

Why would the IRL continue sticking with the manufacture of the world's ugliest race car?

I think Barnhart must be getting a kickback from the Dallara company, otherwise there is no reason not to send the business to an American company. After all, the IRL was created to be an all American racing series.

I realize some of you think it might be cute, but to accuse someone of a criminal act is serious and should be supported by facts, not a SpeedTV opinion piece..

[methanolHuffer]

Doubt there's any illegal dealings.
The car is ugly, though. No way around that.

The IRL is known for it's strong ethics and wisdom. They'd never "lockout" competitors of any kind now would they?

[Wilf]

Doubt there's any illegal dealings.
The car is ugly, though. No way around that.

The IRL is known for it's strong ethics and wisdom. They'd never "lockout" competitors of any kind now would they?

Yes that was such a big crime that the taxi cabs use it on a weekly basis.

[nigelred5]

Pleading Ignorance here, but is it actually illegal if the league is a 100% privately held company? Dallara has been good to the league, even if it is guilty time and time again for designing the ugliest racing cars on earth.

[Lousada]

I thought that if Dallara wins the contract they will open a new factory in the US.

[indycool]

The IRL is privately held. NASCAR is privately held. G Force/Panoz/Eln is privately held. Swift is privately held. Makes no difference.

[nigelred5]

That's what I've read.

[Mark in Oshawa]

First of all, it's Bowlby.

Second, Barnhart getting a kickback is ridiculous.

Third, Ken Anderson was a top-flight engineer. Still is. He gave us the Falcon. The Bowlby design has never been built, tested or run anywhere. This is a time for evolution, not revolution.

IC...GLAD to see you back friend....Been a while and I wondered whether I should message you or not.

I agree with all but the last bit...I think the evolution has to be a drastic revolution perhaps. WE need excitement...not just a better mousetrap that looks similar to the old.

As for Dallara, they have built many successful cars that are NOT ugly, and the Current IRL car isn't the ugliest car by far, but alas, we are REALLY tired of looking at it.

AS for whom the IRL hires or doesn't hire, I think competition should be part of the process, and no one manufacturer should be picked. Put the rules out there and let the manufacturers do what they can to match them. Only stipulation is that there be a claiming rule. That would stop the Roger Penske's from building a 5 million dollar super car that would clean up. I like Roger, but I don't want him building his classic unfair advantages in building a much better car price wise.

Price containment would come through competition for business and a claiming rule....

[speeddurango]

It is said that there will be a model shown at the Chicago car show the Wednesday, if it is not built, what will be there? Only air? On the other hand, whether Barnhart himself gets a kickback from Dallara is unknown, it is true that Dallara has been reported to give certain amount of money to the irl each time a chassis is purchased.

[indycool]

Mark, was hospitalized for a bit and offline...back now.

Whether evolution or revolution, I think the IRL is determined to keep a level playing field. I'd guess Lola was turned down a few years ago because Haas might get the new tricks. Same with Penske. It hasn't been that long since RP controlled the Chevy engine and selected which teams could acquire one and which one couldn't.

I'd guess the Bowlby design is too close to Ganassi, same way. Dallara is only the choice because the G Force/Panoz couldn't be as competitive. 'Spect the same thing will happen however many manufacturers we have. Whoever has the best mousetrap.......

[SarahFan]

welcome back IC.... good to see ya

[indycool]

Thanx, Ken.....was in the crash house for awhile.....just gettin' back.

[SarahFan]

lets be honest about this...

barnhardt isnt smart enough to figure out how to get a kickback

[indycool]

Oh, I think he's smart enough.......jut hasn't considered it. or have it enter his mind.

[NickFalzone]

I don't see Brian as the kind of guy that's in this for the $$. Having spoken to him about the IRL car design a few years ago, I got the impression that he was just genuinely interested in making the Dallara-Honda spec the best car possible. And for better or worse, I think his judgement on the new car is probably a bit biased, in that he feels they made a LOT of development strides with the current car, and it would be a shame to lose them all in an entirely new design like Bowlby's. To him the new Dallara would be ideal, as it could incorporate many of the safety and performance aspects that they built into the current car, and simply take them up a notch. The Delta design, which we will see in the next day or two, is likely to be a radical departure from the Dallara. Perhaps not starting from scratch, but a lot of the tried and true elements of the current car will be simply thrown out the window. That being said, I am likely to favor the Delta project, because I think the IRL in many ways is about innovation, and radically new is NOT necessarily a bad thing, EXCEPT for safety aspects, which are honestly my only significant concern with a radical design. Otherwise, I would kind of like to see a Delta project car that has issues from the start that the teams need to work through, a car that requires more than just Penske/Gannassi wind-tunnel testing to perfect.

[indycool]

I agree with you on Barnhart and his thinkin', Nick.

As far as the DW project is concerned, really not enough information, No prototype, crash testing, safety features, speed. All of those take $$, the teams don't have them and manufacturing is far from set.

[px400r]

First of all, it's Bowlby.

Second, Barnhart getting a kickback is ridiculous.

Third, Ken Anderson was a top-flight engineer. Still is. He gave us the Falcon. The Bowlby design has never been built, tested or run anywhere. This is a time for evolution, not revolution.

None of the proposals from Swift, Lola, and Dallara have been built, tested, or run anywhere.

And I don't think the Falcom ever turned a wheel on the track.

[indycool]

But all three are familiar with Indy Cars. They've built 'em before.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I still refuse to understand how one chassis being anoited is good for the series. Have all cars fit inside a set of parameters for safety and let the marketplace decide. AT some point, either the IRL matters as an innovative series or it is a spec series. Spec series means eventually not being taken seriously. I don't see how it helps. This series has always been able to sell the high tech nature, and you don't get that with no innovation allowed...

[garyshell]

I still refuse to understand how one chassis being anoited is good for the series. Have all cars fit inside a set of parameters for safety and let the marketplace decide. AT some point, either the IRL matters as an innovative series or it is a spec series. Spec series means eventually not being taken seriously. I don't see how it helps. This series has always been able to sell the high tech nature, and you don't get that with no innovation allowed...

Mark there is one and only one reason. $$$$$ plain and simple. Letting the market decide means that some teams buy the wrong chassis find themselves way off pace and then have to scrap that investment and buy the faster chassis or see their sponsor money go away. I don't like that fact, but it is what happens. We saw it before when we did have multiple chassis.

I don't see how being a spec series equates to not being serious. Serious about what? Serious about chasing technology/innovation? The only folks who care about that are us handful of gearheads? How about being serious about showcasing great drivers in an exciting, challenging series of races, that can be financially viable. I am MUCH more interested in the latter as much as I do love the innovation.

Gary

[px400r]

But all three are familiar with Indy Cars. They've built 'em before.

Bowlby was with Lola for 12 years working on their Indy Cars before joining Ganassi. I'd say he knows as much about these cars having designed, built, and even raced them.

He has experience as both customer and supplier.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark there is one and only one reason. $$$$$ plain and simple. Letting the market decide means that some teams buy the wrong chassis find themselves way off pace and then have to scrap that investment and buy the faster chassis or see their sponsor money go away. I don't like that fact, but it is what happens. We saw it before when we did have multiple chassis.

I don't see how being a spec series equates to not being serious. Serious about what? Serious about chasing technology/innovation? The only folks who care about that are us handful of gearheads? How about being serious about showcasing great drivers in an exciting, challenging series of races, that can be financially viable. I am MUCH more interested in the latter as much as I do love the innovation.

Gary

Gary, at some point teams have to pay to play. Making everyone buy the same chassis is just silly....and if the teams pick the wrong chassis, chances are they would be the same teams that would be in the back anyhow. Furthermore, I am also going to say teams would be allowed to modify the cars over time, so you could make a bad car a good car with some work as long as the basic concept wasn't far off.

Listen, at some point, either this series is a first class OW series with all that implies, or it is just a glorified Formula Renault, Formula Nippon or Formula Mazda. It isn't the gear heads that will keep this series alive, but alienating them is not helping the dwindling TV and fan numbers now is it?

This series has to come out and BE something...not just exist.

[indycool]

Bowlby might have a good idea, but who's going to manufacture it?

[px400r]

Bowlby might have a good idea, but who's going to manufacture it?

How about Swift or Lola or even Dallara. I hear Elan Engineering is starving for work. Zytek bought Reynard's chassis manufacturing assets a long time ago. If the Delta Wing wins out, I'm sure any of the losing bidders wouldn't mind getting in on the action.

[indycool]

Little late for that.

[indycool]

Let's put it this way. It's about money and conflicts of interest. With four chassis out there, nobody's going to make any bucks. With two, someone will be faster and all the teams will gravitate to that car, a la Dallara and G Force/Panoz, which also had some quality engineers, or Ken Anderson, who designed the Falcon, who is a quality engineer. The DW is a Johnny-come-lately who has excited a few people but that's the substance of it. Do you honestly think that Zytek and Elan is poised to gear up for this? Elan has already failed. And just why is the DW a good idea?

[indycool]

If Bowlby designed cars for Lola, I'd like to know when. Bruce Ashmore was there forever,

[Mark in Oshawa]

IC..you say no one will make money if there is open competition, but I fail to see why the business model that used to exist isn't valid? Is it the lack of money in Indycar to buy new chassis? Teams wont buy new ones, but repair the old ones? I think at some point, the playing field should be kept open, and let the manufacturers make the call on whether they want to participate. Capitalism dictates if you cant make money, you will get out. The IRL shouldn't be making that decision, the teams will do it for them by buying or not buying any chassis from whomever. If this series goes to back to one Chassis for all by law, it is a short sighted decision that will hurt their crediblity to take back the place they used to have.

[indycool]

Mark, if four mnufacturers arein, that's roughly 5-6 cars per manufacturer. That's a lot of $$$$ for 5-6 cars. Past that, if it doesn't go fast, the customer base will drop rapidly. Could well put people out of business, like G Force.

[NickFalzone]

With the current variety of courses, I'd argue that there's a reasonable chance that 2-3 chassis makers could legitimately compete. Now yes, there would likely be a single dominant oval chassis, but on the roads and streets we might see some variety in strengths. And with the schedule slightly more heavily titled to those courses, that might mean chassis competition could work again. I don't think we'll see it, for the previously mentioned cost reasons, but I don't think it's fair to say one chassis is likely to quickly dominate on all courses.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, if four mnufacturers arein, that's roughly 5-6 cars per manufacturer. That's a lot of $$$$ for 5-6 cars. Past that, if it doesn't go fast, the customer base will drop rapidly. Could well put people out of business, like G Force.

Well G-Force not making ANY Indycars because they are locked out will put them out of business. It isn't Brian Barnhart's job to make sure G-Force or Dallara can make a profit. Make the rules, let any manufacturer in that can comply and let the teams determine the winners and losers.....

[garyshell]

Well G-Force not making ANY Indycars because they are locked out will put them out of business. It isn't Brian Barnhart's job to make sure G-Force or Dallara can make a profit. Make the rules, let any manufacturer in that can comply and let the teams determine the winners and losers.....

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

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

Gary

[px400r]

If Bowlby designed cars for Lola, I'd like to know when. Bruce Ashmore was there forever,

LOL, some people just won't hear what they don't want to hear.

Bowlby was chief designer at Lola until 2002 (http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/other/386862/the-future-of-indycar-and-the-indianapolis-500.html).

I think that makes him every bit an expert as the good folks at Lola, Swift, and Dallara.

As for Ashmore, he was at Lola until 1993, when he left to work his magic at Reynard. As you know, Reynard dominated until the last generation Lola Champ Car came out in 2000. IIRC, Bowlby had been with Lola for nearly 12 years- and like Ashmore, was a chief designer.

[Mark in Oshawa]

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

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

Gary

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

[garyshell]

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

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

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

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

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

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

Gary

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

[indycool]

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

[Mark in Oshawa]

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

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

[indycool]

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

[Mark in Oshawa]

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

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

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

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

[indycool]

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

[SarahFan]

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


so what are your expectations this year?

[SarahFan]

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


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

[NickFalzone]

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

IC do you really believe that the IRL has been steadily losing fanbase because of less advertising promoting the sport? I think Indy Car racing, as we know it in North America, has gotten very stale and it needs a significant on-track change to have a shot at getting back into the public's consciousness. IZOD, VS/NBC, and madison ave, they are a crucial part, but what they are running up against is a public that just is more interested in NASCAR type racing. The racing the IRL puts on is not necessarily bad, but it has fallen out of favor with the public. I do believe that changing what is on track, and marketing that change (along with marketing drivers, et al) is highly important in growing the series again. I am of the belief that if Delta got the project, what goes on track 2 years from now will look quite a bit more like an IndyCar than what we have in this car-show prototype. But it will stand out quite a bit in the marketplace, and that's very important.

[px400r]

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

IC, the IRL/Barnhart hasn't been doing a good job at "controlling costs and leveling the playing field." And it's also his apparent favor for Dallara that has gotten many of us suspicious (much like Penske and the CART owners, to use your words).

And the playing field is level only if you're Penske or Ganassi.

[V12]

And the playing field is level only if you're Penske or Ganassi.

Yep, Penske and Ganassi have been more dominant (as a duopoly) than ever since the Dallara-Honda combo became ubiquitous.

In the past, you could sneak a surprise result if your Lola or Goodyears or whatever happened to suit the track and conditions better than his Reynard or Firestones for example. Penske spent quite a few years in the doldrums, a lot of which was down to their own chassis being uncompetitive.

If you take away all these variables, then its inevitable that the most resourced and experienced teams will iterate over the fine details until they are at the front - and then they'll stay there.

To be honest I've never understood the whole "level playing field" argument anyway. Even in an open formula everyone's cars are built to the same regulations - that to me is a level playing field. This is a sport and in sports you generally get some people who do better than others.

At least the cost/economies of scale argument is a more reasonable one, but are they saying that if the economy picks up they'll open it out again? I doubt it, spec series have been around in boom-times (for the general world economy) as well as bust.

They started off as a curious gimmick and rarity back in the days of Formula Vauxhall/Opel Lotus for example, but now they've infiltrated pretty much everywhere bar F1, F3 and FFord (as far as professional open wheel racing is concerned). And I think they've overstayed their welcome.

[px400r]

To be honest I've never understood the whole "level playing field" argument anyway. Even in an open formula everyone's cars are built to the same regulations - that to me is a level playing field. This is a sport and in sports you generally get some people who do better than others.

At least the cost/economies of scale argument is a more reasonable one, but are they saying that if the economy picks up they'll open it out again? I doubt it, spec series have been around in boom-times (for the general world economy) as well as bust.


Having thought about this for a while, I think the only way to truly level the playing field is the "lead trophy" approach used in touring cars. Simply put, Penske and Ganassi would have heavier cars than everyone else. Maybe give them an additional aero disadvantage.

[V12]

Having thought about this for a while, I think the only way to truly level the playing field is the "lead trophy" approach used in touring cars. Simply put, Penske and Ganassi would have heavier cars than everyone else. Maybe give them an additional aero disadvantage.

In all honesty though, that wouldn't be a level playing field, since successful teams are having to effectively run to different rules as others, I've never been a fan of penalising success in this way, indeed no other sport does it. You don't see Tiger Woods (well, before his recent absence) have to start a golf tournament a few shots behind, or Roger Federer having to start a tennis match a set behind his opponent, or Man Utd or Barcelona starting a football league season on negative points just for winning it the previous year. In fact the only thing I can think of that comes close is the draft system employed by many US "sports" that gives the best picks to the worst teams of the previous season.

[indycool]

Ken, my expectations bare for very modest improvement.


Nick, the split hurt, It's like marketing the SPORT from the grond up now. More ovals helps. Centennial Era at Indy helps. Texas helps. But it'a long way home.

[px400r]

In all honesty though, that wouldn't be a level playing field, since successful teams are having to effectively run to different rules as others, I've never been a fan of penalising success in this way, indeed no other sport does it. You don't see Tiger Woods (well, before his recent absence) have to start a golf tournament a few shots behind, or Roger Federer having to start a tennis match a set behind his opponent, or Man Utd or Barcelona starting a football league season on negative points just for winning it the previous year. In fact the only thing I can think of that comes close is the draft system employed by many US "sports" that gives the best picks to the worst teams of the previous season.

The draft doesn't equalize competition. What has given the illusion of equalized competition is allowing mediocre teams to make the post season playoffs. Just because a team wins the most (i.e., consistently) during a long season doesn't guarantee them a championship. In fact, a less talented team can win it all by going on a hot streak at the right time. To me, that's penalizing a successful team.

But the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL all do it in the name of "competition." They realized that by giving more teams a chance to become winners, the better off the sport in terms of fans interest. For example, it was fine when the Canadiens dominated hockey when there were only (literally) a handful of teams. But do you really think the NHL can survive if only 4 teams out of 30 make the playoffs (and a shot at winning the Stanley Cup) every year?

What Indy Car needs to survive is to expand. By expansion I mean finding a way to make more teams competitive. If that takes penalizing Penske and Ganassi in some way, then I'm all for it. After all, doing nothing and letting those 5 or 6 cars run away from the field has definitely not helped.

[Mark in Oshawa]

IC, the IRL/Barnhart hasn't been doing a good job at "controlling costs and leveling the playing field." And it's also his apparent favor for Dallara that has gotten many of us suspicious (much like Penske and the CART owners, to use your words).

And the playing field is level only if you're Penske or Ganassi.

Here Here!!! Can't say more than that....

[methanolHuffer]

Penske will retire one of these days. Chip Ganasty has been a big-timer in more than just Open Wheel Racing for awhile now.
Andretti (mike) isn't much of a leader in my opinion.

Lot's of old guys getting fed up with it all.