Owners reject 2012 car!

[Otto-Matic]

:eek: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/ ... -2012-car/ (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-robin-miller-speed-owners-reject-2012-car/)

so obviously this has some very serious implications. the whole thing is a bit fishy to me. Why didnt they bring up the issue of additional costs back in March, as Randy suggests?
also, I'm wondering if this has more to do with their rejection of Dallara than the actual car concept itself. Their claiming they wont have the money to buy new equipment for 2012, but the car/engine combo will be a third of the currest costs. how do you have money to run a team now but not money to run a team at a reduced price in two years? I'd love to be a fly on the wall in those owners' meetings.

[ezhop7]

Sound like to me some of the more powerful owners did not get their way and now they are rocking the boat. If the current Dallara less engine is $700K and the 2012 Dallara chassis is$235K+$70K for aero pieces seems like to me that you'll be saving cash...Hmmm smell fishy to me!!!!!

[anthonyvop]

Wow Robin "I swear I don't steal my stories from the internet" Miller must of had is resume he sent to Indy returned.

[anthonyvop]

Sound like to me some of the more powerful owners did not get their way and now they are rocking the boat. If the current Dallara less engine is $700K and the 2012 Dallara chassis is$235K+$70K for aero pieces seems like to me that you'll be saving cash...Hmmm smell fishy to me!!!!!

It isn't just $235K + $70K. It is a crap-load of parts, spares and specific equipment that has to be purchased also.
Not to mention a crap-load of parts, spares and specific equipment that will become useless.

[TURN3]

PT brought this very issue up in one of his blogs I think. His data apparently came from working with the KV team. I haven't heard any grumblings until now but this does certainly seem to have merit.

[Chris R]

I think this will work its way out - it sounds alot like 1978 - the owners want a bigger say..... does anybody still own the name "CART"? 'cause that's where this is headed.....

[call_me_andrew]

I think the bigger question is "why didn't somone speak up sooner?"

[Chamoo]

I also think that the title of the article is a little bit mis-leading. If you read the entire article, you'll understand some of the owners are pretty upset, however, some of them are just making their opinions heard. In fact, if you read the part from AJ, he mentions how his fellow owners are simply moaning because they can.

Sure, they want more say, they want more power, and this is a bargaining chip to do so. However, I think they waited a little bit long to mention something about it.

[anthonyvop]

I think the bigger question is "why didn't somone speak up sooner?"


They have. It was just that robin Miller has to wait a bit before he published a story he stole.

Kirby wrote about it almost 2 weeks ago.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2010/the_way_it_is_no249.html

[SarahFan]

I've said for well over a year.... Substantially cheaper just ain't going to happen

[EagleEye]

I have been way to busy of late, but this has been a mess from the get go. The owners, are far from happy, and this and the TV ratings have created even more issues.

And, work continues on the Delta Wing...and just what series would have a spec car, but allow teams to buld it?

I think you will see the current tubs grand-fathered in, but it is way to soon to tell. And, if work continues on the DW, will NASCAR create a new series?

RB said if there are not five groups building parts, then he shuld be fired. There will not be five groups, and he should not be fired. The math just does not support five groups. Two, maybe three unless some groups use it as amarketing tool.

Take a third of the field, ten cars, plus spares, less COGS, IRL Fee, and the cost to send a truck to all races for spares, and you barely have a business case. And that is only three groups!

I just want to get through this season.

[Hoop-98]

Remember the Future of Auto Racing? The DP01 which got an overwhelmingly positive reception here but hastened CCWS's demise due to increased year one cost.

So if you realize any new car will have increased year one start up costs, are you against new cars and suggest we continue with this car?

BTW, in this posters opinion, the inability of CART to make any decisions in the late 90s and 2000's doomed the series. Penske, Ganassis, Hass, would never agree on a new direction unless they could benefit. Despite many urgent issues, the owners were never able to agree on a future, so, no future.

rh

[downtowndeco]

Yup. Let's never let the lunatics run the asylum again.

QUOTE=Hoop-98;834469]BTW, in this posters opinion, the inability of CART to make any decisions in the late 90s and 2000's doomed the series. Penske, Ganassis, Hass, would never agree on a new direction unless they could benefit. Despite many urgent issues, the owners were never able to agree on a future, so, no future.

rh[/QUOTE]

[Scotty G.]

Randy, we tried to warn you.

Signed,

Joe Heitzler, Chris Pook, Andrew Craig, Bobby Rahal and John Frasco.



This sport is a complete mess. In fact, its even more of a mess today then it was last year at this time. We still have no new car. We have more and more terrible races, with terrible officiating and terrible driving. We have no relationship left with ISC and its many, many tracks accross the country. We have the top team in the sport with no sponsor for 2 of his 3 cars. We have fewer and fewer American drivers by the year. We have 1 American driver most weeks in Lights. Danica is half-way out the door to NASCAR (and at this point, can you even blame her or Blow Daddy?). Most of the best young Americans and Canadians want no part of the sport (unless its a last resort). Ratings continue to tank, with the Indy 500's being the worst in history. New sponsors are as scarce as actual journalists covering the sport.

We are stuck on Versus and can't get out of the contract. We have the owners bitching (which is what they do best) and talking about refusing to buy the new car. We have IMS scaling back to the barebones, with the NASCAR Brickyard 400 (and HUGE moneymaker for the Indy Car series) going in the tank.

What's next? IMS selling out to the highest bidder? Bernard saying the hell with it and bailing? Penske, Haas and Foyt saying the hell with it and retiring?

Some might think its ridiculous, but don't be surprised that 3 or 4 years now the sport is rebranded and it becomes the NASCAR (insert sponsor name) Indy Car Series. Maybe replace the Truck Series, with the Indy Cars? NASCAR already got into sports cars. Why not Indy Cars?

It might be the only hope at this point.

[Hoop-98]

Yup. Let's never let the lunatics run the asylum again.

QUOTE=Hoop-98;834469]BTW, in this posters opinion, the inability of CART to make any decisions in the late 90s and 2000's doomed the series. Penske, Ganassis, Hass, would never agree on a new direction unless they could benefit. Despite many urgent issues, the owners were never able to agree on a future, so, no future.

rh[/quote]

kinda curious Anthony, do we need a new car or not?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Remember the Future of Auto Racing? The DP01 which got an overwhelmingly positive reception here but hastened CCWS's demise due to increased year one cost.

So if you realize any new car will have increased year one start up costs, are you against new cars and suggest we continue with this car?

BTW, in this posters opinion, the inability of CART to make any decisions in the late 90s and 2000's doomed the series. Penske, Ganassis, Hass, would never agree on a new direction unless they could benefit. Despite many urgent issues, the owners were never able to agree on a future, so, no future.

rh

I am taking your take on this I think because you of all people seems to understand the technical side of all of this. I also agree with you.

I think the owners are being a little cute and just blowing off steam. They had Gil and others at that table that were I am sure giving their opinion on things. This decision wasn't made in a vacuum, and everyone publically at the time endorsed it. Now the DW is still in the works and everyone is grumbling?

You know...at some point, these guys have to decide that what they are doing isn't working, and then realize that the best option a committee of experts (some of which were pulled from their ranks with THEIR input) made a decision..and they have to get on with it.

If they don't then fine, toss it open, open up the rule book, let the chips fall where they may (not Ganassi) and when only 10 cars can afford to make the grade, maybe THEN it will hit them...

I don't think for a second the new car will be as cheap as advertised, but I am damn sure they need a) a new car, and b)a new direction. They had their say, the decision was made...get on with it...

[Mark in Oshawa]

They have. It was just that robin Miller has to wait a bit before he published a story he stole.

Kirby wrote about it almost 2 weeks ago.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2010/the_way_it_is_no249.html

I read both, Miller didn't steal the story at all, he just found more people willing to talk. You have to get over your hatred of Miller Tony....

Kirby's interview was excellent, but I think this love of the Delta Wing is a false prophet too....and the techno nerd in me wishes they could have the car on the track for tests before it was dismissed.

The only quibble I have with this new car is the time line, and the fact I do not agree that the decision couldn't be delayed a few months while the Delta had at least a shakedown to prove the concept. The fact Chip and the boys are still funding it says to me this may be an interesting few months.

Gil De Ferran was pollling all the owners, and since he is a good buddy of Roger Penske and a partner with Jay Penske; he wasn't going to go in there and blow smoke up the @sses of the other ICONIC members and he wasn't going to say he agreed with this decision if he didn't have to.

This is posturing.

AJ Foyt put it best....they don't know what they want, and Hoop stated that was how CART/CCWS screwed up so many deals on this front...

[SarahFan]

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-2012-car/

^this article was dated dec 10th 2009...8 1/2 months ago....and specifically states the deltawing was a proposal for the 2012 season...

also in the article is the following......Owners Michael Andretti, Eric Bachelart, John Barnes, Tony George, Kevin Kalkhoven, Roger Penske, Dennis Reinbold, Kevin Kalkhoven, Keith Wiggins and Ganassi have endorsed building the protoype and formed a company called Delta Wing LLC.....

now according to miller these same owners are claiming they cant afford a new car.....they weren't properly informed etc etc..blah blah... cry me a river...

[SarahFan]

“The league decided to do a new car and never consulted the teams and we’re all wondering how we’re going to be able to pay for new equipment given the current economy and value of the series,” said Eric Bachelart of Conquest Racing.


^I call bullfeces Eric..... you were part of dletawingllc, now you want to claim you werent consulted about 2012....whatever

[px400r]

[quote="downtowndeco"]Yup. Let's never let the lunatics run the asylum again.
[quote]

And yet here we are...

[Chris R]

There are a lot of good posts on this topic - it s hard to disagree with most of them - the only other valid "excuse" I can come up with for team owners apparently waiting to voice these concerns is that the economic outlook is evolving and while it might have seemed even 2 months ago that things would be getting better in 2012, I am not at all sure that is the case now.... Perhaps these owners are just realizing that the sponsorship offers for 2011-2012 are few and far between and for even less money than in the past. I know for us, at the beginning of the summer we were thinking "let's just get through the next 18 months and all will be well" - now we think it is more like 24-36 more months of "survival mode".....

[Otto-Matic]

They have. It was just that robin Miller has to wait a bit before he published a story he stole.

Kirby wrote about it almost 2 weeks ago.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2010/the_way_it_is_no249.html

wow that was a very good read, thanks for posting this Tony.
So now I feel even worse about the long term survival of AOWR. If teams are not operating at a profit and the business model is beyond repair, then the thing to do would be to shut down Indycar and start all over, from scratch, with a business model that can survive and help it's consumers (i.e the team owners) operate their organizations at a profit. it sucks but i dont see how you can make such a radical business plan change without going that route. clearly there are too many people w/ulterior motives and obsticales in the way to do it as a 'roliing change".

The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

[chuck34]

“The league decided to do a new car and never consulted the teams and we’re all wondering how we’re going to be able to pay for new equipment given the current economy and value of the series,” said Eric Bachelart of Conquest Racing.

So, Eric, what's your plan? We all know the value of the series isn't what it should be. So what do we do to fix that? Keep doing the same things, with the same cars, at the same tracks (or maybe slightly different tracks), over and over until some magic fairy comes along and makes it all better? What's that old quote, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That's what we're doing.

I realize this new car isn't going to be cheap. And yes, some teams won't be able to buy it. So they'll either fold or go somewhere else. That's the way this sport has worked for years and years. Where's Jim Hall's team, Vel's Parnelli's team, Pat Patrick's team, Dan Gurney's team, Rahal Letterman, Hemelgarn, etc? Those are all race/championship teams that I thought up off the top of my head that are no longer around (at least in their past forms). The sport continued without them, and I'm sure it could continue without Dale Coyne, Dryer and Reynbold, Conquest, and some others. Now sure I'd like to see all those teams stick around. But if we don't change something soon to attract fans, and sponsors NO TEAM will survive, and that includes the "rich" teams like Penske and Ganassi.

Edit: I hadn't read all the way through all the posts before posting this. Just saw Otto's bit about insanity. Great minds think alike. :)

[Otto-Matic]

E
dit: I hadn't read all the way through all the posts before posting this. Just saw Otto's bit about insanity. Great minds think alike. :)
Haha Chuck you're my brotha from anotha motha ;)

Bachelart is talking out his a$$. The series is dying and, as Cotman dictated to Dallara, managment is going to do what is in the best interest of the series.

[anthonyvop]

kinda curious Anthony, do we need a new car or not?[/QUOTE]

Yep. But a spec car and trashing the old ones isn't the way to go.

[DBell]

The one constant in IndyCar over the years is dysfunctionality. The beat goes on.

How about a new slogan for IndyCar?

Cluster****s-R-Us

edit: Any old time Monday Night Football fans out there? Remember what Don Meredith used to sing when he thought the outcome of the game was decided? Maybe it's getting time to cue up 'ol Dandy Don for IndyCar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3xsDv6yCnY

[TURN3]

kinda curious Anthony, do we need a new car or not?

Yep. But a spec car and trashing the old ones isn't the way to go.[/quote]

Then what is the way to go? A question for anybody, not just Antnie.

Seriously, we all agree we want and need a new car, reduced costs, better racing, non-spec series, etc. I'm convinced there is no perfect answer. I'm also convinced that they cannot grow the sport without generating a product that sells. In order to grow in any business, you have to go through growing pains. There is no perfect formula. My impression was that the assembled group took those things into consideration in an effort to come up with the best POSSIBLE solution for all factors. That said, I'm not 100% happy with the concept but have accepted it as the direction management has taken us.

Now what?

I refuse to watch this hunk of **** putter around tracks for another 3 years and I'm about as die hard of fan as there is. If I feel that way then I can only imagine that another 2 years of this will be the end of Indycar. Now we're back to Scotty's point of letting it go, killing to series, and trying to bring it back in 2 or 3 years. All things considered, not a bad option.

[Chris R]

As far as letting the series die - probably not a great idea- but perhaps it should be massively scaled back as soon as possible (i.e. - don't burn any bridges by breaking contracts for races) to maybe only 6 races for a couple of years including the first year or two with a new car - focus heavily on rebuilding the 500 and a few key events and let the rest go until you have some real success to build on.... just a thought.... oh, and when they scale back, open up the series to perhaps the Dp-01 too - maybe even the old Champcar Lola's... basically take a big step back and then re-invent the whole thing as is should be not how it has to be to support the current model of doing business....

[Jag_Warrior]

Not an option at all. Even one year away and it's never coming back. Make no mistake of that.

Yep. As Neil Young sang in Hey Hey, My My:
"They give you this, but you pay for that.
And once you're gone, you can't come back.
When you're out of the blue and into the black."

Dead is dead...

And anyway, what would these "geniuses" do in 2-3 years that they can't do now? Instead of AOWR, just call it FUBAR.

Also an interesting quote (which most of us realized) from the Newman-Haas guy in Kirby's column:


"The Hildebrands and the Alex Rossis are not being ignored. It's just that they are not an option. The truth of the matter is the IRL is on financial life-support, largely paid for by the owners. If it wasn't for the owners, there wouldn't be a series anymore."

[TURN3]

As far as letting the series die - probably not a great idea- but perhaps it should be massively scaled back as soon as possible (i.e. - don't burn any bridges by breaking contracts for races) to maybe only 6 races for a couple of years including the first year or two with a new car - focus heavily on rebuilding the 500 and a few key events and let the rest go until you have some real success to build on.... just a thought.... oh, and when they scale back, open up the series to perhaps the Dp-01 too - maybe even the old Champcar Lola's... basically take a big step back and then re-invent the whole thing as is should be not how it has to be to support the current model of doing business....

That is more or less what I meant. I'm starting to think that is the only way to rebuild this. Run Indy, Long Beach, and a few other popular events and create a "want" for the product. Build from within that framework and gradually expand over the coming years with technology, products, etc. that consumers can relate to...as the economy rebounds. The economy is on a pace for about a 10 year recovery. Smart business is to build with economic growth...not modified to conform to present. What is might be a halfway good idea for today probably won't be in 3 years.

[booger]

Turn 3...aren't there already more tracks and promoters that want an event than there are races to go around? If this is true, it sounds like the demand is there and your idea of scaling back would be counter-productive, no?

[Lousada]

One thing is for sure, there is nothing more harmful to a racing series than uncertainty over it's future. Prospective engine manufacturers are going to to think twice now before they commit to 2012. For bodykit manufacturers, I don't know when they have to fix their budget te be ready for 2012, but this revolt is not going to encourage them.

I wonder who is sabotaging who though?
IMS/IRL is clearly trying to stall this new car. BB sad on his hands the past 3 years, only coming to life when Delta Wing was formed. Now we are a year further along and we still have nothing more than some assumptions. The only thing we know is that it will still be a Dallara/Honda. That's not progress...
What do the owners want? If they want to race anywhere else they need new cars anyway. So what on earth do want to achieve? Perhaps they are looking for handouts? But with IMS in full cost-saving mode I can only think of the infamous words by our previous leader: "If the IRL is not profitable by 2013, there will be no 2013".

[TURN3]

Turn 3...aren't there already more tracks and promoters that want an event than there are races to go around? If this is true, it sounds like the demand is there and your idea of scaling back would be counter-productive, no?

There are plenty of places that want an event, that is true. That isn't the problem. In part, the problem is that the U.S. market is saturated generally by entertainment, and specifically with racing. I think if you scale back you create more of a demand because you're product is only available a specified number of times in a year. Rebuild the Indycar brand piece by piece while feeding off of the enriched audience your getting 5 or 6 times per year. Create a consumer/product relationship that people can relate to. The idea is more productive for the TV audience. If promoted correctly, an event (say Balitmore next year) can draw a crowd. But Edmonton is still losing money and they draw quite well (there isn't jack crap to do in Edmonton any other time of year!).

There are way too many dynamics to solve this issue one way or another. Essentially, some sacrifice is going to need to be made somewhere.

[Hoop-98]

One owners response;
"The majority of them [car owners against the 2012 project] are the ones that were saying all along that the current car needs to be replaced, and were upset when it was pushed from 2011 to 2012. I will have to say that the majority of the owners that are not wanting to get a new car are the ones that invested hundreds of thousands of dollars each into the DeltaWing project. I speculate that this would not have been an issue had the DeltaWing have been selected as the chassis, they would have forced teams to purchase those ugly beasts for quite a bit more than the 2012 Dallara option from the prices I saw. Now that the outcome of the chassis selection did not include the company that those owners invested heavily in, now they want to hold off from purchasing new cars. I think it is guys like these that are doing more harm to the sport than anyone at the Indycar Series, and this type of foolish thinking is exactly why the value of Indycar is not where it needs to be.

Chip [Ganassi], Michael [Andretti] and Roger [Penske] all have the biggest budget of any team (minimum of $8 million per car) and they say they can't afford to spend $600k on new cars in 2012? We all run our teams as a business, and if we know that in 2 years time we will have to make a capital investment of around $600k for new equipment, then we need to manage our businesses such that we can afford to make this investment. $600k would mean having to cut some engineering staff, or mechanics, or not investing in luxury motorcoaches for a season, etc. Let's also remember that the engine lease is expected to go from $935k to about 600k, which means that you have enough savings in the engine lease to roughly purchase one new chassis. This is still a much better climate for chassis than it was in the 80's and 90's when teams were forced to purchase new cars every season, at $250k each. Now, we make a purchase of a chassis and have it for minimum of 3 seasons. Bottom line, teams have to manage their businesses and prepare for a capital expenditure in 2012, they need to make cuts where appropriate to be able to afford new equipment.

I support the Indycar Series and their forward thinking approach to developing a new, fresh, and exciting racing product that we can put on the track. Most importantly, my team needs a good product to go and sell to companies wanting to invest their marketing dollars in my team and the Indycar Series. An old, antiquated, outdated chassis is not going to be exciting for the fans, and thus the sponsors. The Series has an incredible amount of forward momentum in the sports entertainment marketplace, and with many sponsors leaving or greatly reducing their involvement in NASCAR, the Indycar Series is well positioned as a marketing platform with continued growth shown over the past season. A new chassis and look for Indycar will continue to bring excitement and cost effectiveness to the series in the future." - Anonymous team owner

from 16th&Georgetown

Maybe Robin the 'reporter" can investigate this conflict of interest from the same owners who helped maintain the moribund state of the last series they were involved in..

[ezhop7]

The Kirby article says that if the owners had the funding they would run American...Hmmm Milka Dunno "Citgo" and Boys Scouts " The British Driver" can't remember his name. I wander which sponsor is really funding Coyne Racing.....JR Hildebrand probably could have drove the road course races for Milka, but she is a better sell for the sponsor. Coyne is makiing money and so is DR, Conquest and Foyt. The problem is IRL management has to let the inmates know you had your chance to provide input, but now is not the time to cry foul.

[downtowndeco]

I guess I don't get this;

"The truth of the matter is the IRL is on financial life-support, largely paid for by the owners. If it wasn't for the owners, there wouldn't be a series anymore."

I thought the teams were the ones on life support and the IRL was funding them, not the other way around.

[Chris R]

One owners response;
"The majority of them [car owners against the 2012 project] are the ones that were saying all along that the current car needs to be replaced, and were upset when it was pushed from 2011 to 2012. I will have to say that the majority of the owners that are not wanting to get a new car are the ones that invested hundreds of thousands of dollars each into the DeltaWing project. I speculate that this would not have been an issue had the DeltaWing have been selected as the chassis, they would have forced teams to purchase those ugly beasts for quite a bit more than the 2012 Dallara option from the prices I saw. Now that the outcome of the chassis selection did not include the company that those owners invested heavily in, now they want to hold off from purchasing new cars. I think it is guys like these that are doing more harm to the sport than anyone at the Indycar Series, and this type of foolish thinking is exactly why the value of Indycar is not where it needs to be.

Chip [Ganassi], Michael [Andretti] and Roger [Penske] all have the biggest budget of any team (minimum of $8 million per car) and they say they can't afford to spend $600k on new cars in 2012? We all run our teams as a business, and if we know that in 2 years time we will have to make a capital investment of around $600k for new equipment, then we need to manage our businesses such that we can afford to make this investment. $600k would mean having to cut some engineering staff, or mechanics, or not investing in luxury motorcoaches for a season, etc. Let's also remember that the engine lease is expected to go from $935k to about 600k, which means that you have enough savings in the engine lease to roughly purchase one new chassis. This is still a much better climate for chassis than it was in the 80's and 90's when teams were forced to purchase new cars every season, at $250k each. Now, we make a purchase of a chassis and have it for minimum of 3 seasons. Bottom line, teams have to manage their businesses and prepare for a capital expenditure in 2012, they need to make cuts where appropriate to be able to afford new equipment.

I support the Indycar Series and their forward thinking approach to developing a new, fresh, and exciting racing product that we can put on the track. Most importantly, my team needs a good product to go and sell to companies wanting to invest their marketing dollars in my team and the Indycar Series. An old, antiquated, outdated chassis is not going to be exciting for the fans, and thus the sponsors. The Series has an incredible amount of forward momentum in the sports entertainment marketplace, and with many sponsors leaving or greatly reducing their involvement in NASCAR, the Indycar Series is well positioned as a marketing platform with continued growth shown over the past season. A new chassis and look for Indycar will continue to bring excitement and cost effectiveness to the series in the future." - Anonymous team owner

from 16th&Georgetown

Maybe Robin the 'reporter" can investigate this conflict of interest from the same owners who helped maintain the moribund state of the last series they were involved in..


any clues who the anonymous owner is? it is certainly a well reasoned argument.

[Chris R]

I guess I don't get this;

"The truth of the matter is the IRL is on financial life-support, largely paid for by the owners. If it wasn't for the owners, there wouldn't be a series anymore."

I thought the teams were the ones on life support and the IRL was funding them, not the other way around.

I think that model changed over the past 2 seasons..... Funny thing is, when the teams are footing the bill, a lot more cars are suddenly on the grid...... hmmmmm - a strong argument for the free market system I suppose....

[chuck34]

any clues who the anonymous owner is? it is certainly a well reasoned argument.

My (wild) guess would be Gil. But that's just me.

[SarahFan]

going to be an interesting paddock this weekend for certain

[call_me_andrew]

My (wild) guess would be Gil. But that's just me.

Between Gil and A.J. Foyt, I'm inclined to pick Gil. Foyt doesn't strike me as the passive-aggressive type.

[MDS]

I think its a little early to say that the owners are rejecting the 2012 car. Its probably more far to say they are concerned, and have serious issues about moving forward with the Dallara and the aero kit. If all the owners were on the same page as the league at this point most people wouldn't believe them either. Part of this is public posturing to support behind the scenes deal making.

The league is in a very difficult position. The current Dallara is almost qualified for vintage racing, and it wasn't that great of a car to begin with. The only off-the-shelf product they could possibly use is the DP-01, and I think most everyone agrees that shouldn't happen. If they let two or more manufactures in prices would go up and I don't know of anyone who is really pleased with the current Dallara.

There are some issues that have to be worked out, yes the owners are a bit nervous, as they should be, we might lose a team, and the car count will likely go down but what would have been better? The Lola proposal? The Delta Wing? Swift? Two manufacturers?

Fact is the league made a tough call, and there will always be people who say its the wrong thing.

[glauistean]

I am taking your take on this I think because you of all people seems to understand the technical side of all of this. I also agree with you.

I think the owners are being a little cute and just blowing off steam. They had Gil and others at that table that were I am sure giving their opinion on things. This decision wasn't made in a vacuum, and everyone publically at the time endorsed it. Now the DW is still in the works and everyone is grumbling?

You know...at some point, these guys have to decide that what they are doing isn't working, and then realize that the best option a committee of experts (some of which were pulled from their ranks with THEIR input) made a decision..and they have to get on with it.

If they don't then fine, toss it open, open up the rule book, let the chips fall where they may (not Ganassi) and when only 10 cars can afford to make the grade, maybe THEN it will hit them...

I don't think for a second the new car will be as cheap as advertised, but I am damn sure they need a) a new car, and b)a new direction. They had their say, the decision was made...get on with it...

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of it but the DP01 was not the demise of CHAMPCAR. The money flow stopped. Kalkoven was not going to fund the series any longer without Forsyth who was still in a huff over certain things that occur during the '07 season. He was no longer going to pay PT $5 million and sponsor the car through his own company and have his arm twisted to run another car. Servia I believe. AJ Almendinger snubbing Forsyth showed him what loyalty was all about. All those reasons combined were what caused the failure of CHAMPCAR not the DP01.

As for this hullabulloo right now. All of you that come in here are race fans. Surely, you have heard the grumblings a couple of months back. I have. I am no closer to the pulse of racing than many of you , but I do have contacts within certain areas.

AJ was always going to whine. Why ABC supports him is beyond me. At any rate that's another story. Penske, Ganassi and some others want what they want because for all intents and purposes they ARE the series. So they stomp and whine until they get their way.

Does anyone recall how humble Penske got when Unser failed to qualify for INDY with their (at the time$12 million) per car. Then he had to look for a supplier when Mercedes left. His failure in F1. At the moment it's easy for him and Ganassi because they can have their teams supported out of their massive budgets they get from their NASCAR teams and other series.

If they really raise this a notch higher than it is, they will kill the series altogether. If they want to. However, there has to be some nice revenue coming in somewhere and they see an angle for more by whining about the new spec car.

I don't care much for either of these guys. I recall Jimmy Vasser so well stating that they was no 'e' in Ganassi.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't care much for either of these guys. I recall Jimmy Vasser so well stating that they was no 'e' in Ganassi.

I think that was after Jimmy won the CART Championship and was then driving for Patrick? But yes, I remember that. I believe it was, "there's no 'i' in 'team', but there is in 'Chip'."

As you said, Penske (especially) and Ganassi will always do what is best for them, no matter whether it's right for the series in question or not. I know that is the same thing that was said about Ecclestone in another thread. But in the case of Ecclestone, he has taken F1 along for the ride. As we now know, Penske and Ganassi simply jump to whatever series can best feather their nests. Penske was a key player in CART when Porsche and others found it too restrictive to be competitive. Penske was a key player in CART when NO decision could be made on a new engine formula in the mid 90's.

If I wanted to learn how to run a racing team, Roger Penske is one of the first people I would listen to. If I was trying to learn how to run a series, Roger Penske is one of the LAST people I would listen to... especially if he had a team in that series.

Whether this is the right path or the wrong one, the decision has been made. And Bernard better realize that his authority is being tested. He's already shown weakness by not dealing with the Milka Duno situation. If he doesn't herd this dysfunctional pack of cats right now, he might as well tender his resignation BEFORE the 2012 season, IMO.

Last point: with this cluster now public, I say the chances of there being a new car, with anything other than a Honda powering it, to open the 2012 season now stands at WAY less than 50%.

[Lousada]

Between Gil and A.J. Foyt, I'm inclined to pick Gil. Foyt doesn't strike me as the passive-aggressive type.

Or Sarah Fisher?

[beachbum]

Personally, I find this apparent "posturing" by some teams to be a bit disingenuous. Most of the top teams replace their cars nearly every year anyway, so a cheaper replacement won't have much impact. But like the introduction of the DP-01 in Champ Car, the bigger cost is all of the support equipment, from simple stuff like jack stands, to special tools and all of the spares needed (which are now obsolete) such as shocks and springs, etc.

IMHO, they are grumbling because they won't be able to use all of the trick bits they have spend ton's of money developing and won't have an "unfair advantage". They will start on the same level as everyone else. In the case of KV, they are already replacing body kits on a regular basis, so a $70,000 kit may be a cost savings.

Some seem to have a short memory of the "old days" when it wasn't uncommon to change cars in mid season. It has only been in recent years that a chassis could be used for multiple seasons and still be competitive. Even back in the roadster days, cars could run for many years, but advancement typically made them less competitive every year. The top teams had new cars every year.

Perhaps Chipster forgets when he ran both Panoz and Dallaras in the same season, or when teams in CART might run a Reynard and a Lola in the same season. At some point, the old cars have to be replaced.

[SarahFan]

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/marshall-pruett-indycar-cant-we-all-just-get-along/P1

"If you’re a fan of multiple personalities, you’ll love the IZOD IndyCar Series."

[Jag_Warrior]

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/marshall-pruett-indycar-cant-we-all-just-get-along/P1

"If you’re a fan of multiple personalities, you’ll love the IZOD IndyCar Series."

Great article. I always enjoy reading Pruett's pieces. I followed a link to another of his articles from that one and found this in relation to Grand Am changing its chassis and engine specs at roughly the same time as the IRL:


Chasing the dollars and interest of auto manufacturers has become the mantra for most road racing series today. The IZOD IndyCar Series has sent its CEO on a world tour to visit with a long list of manufacturers, and Spitzer confirms that GRAND-AM is also talking with many of the same brands about joining the Rolex Series.

and


GRAND-AM Vice President of Competition Dave Spitzer:

“In addition to the next generation of [naturally aspirated] engines, we are also actively considering turbochargers for Daytona Prototypes.

We are working on a model to develop a balanced performance program, and we’re talking to several manufacturers already about the potential to introduce turbos in 2012 or 2013."

So Grand Am plans for a new car that is not so freakish looking, has the option of having design cues from OEM road cars and could have (branded) turbo engines in addition to normally aspirated ones. And you could still pick from one of five chassis manufacturers... and do it within a reasonable budget. And it sounds like Grand Am is involving the teams along every step of the way. (http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/grand-am-dp-changes-planned-for-11-12/) F1, NASCAR, GP2 and (now) Grand Am seem to be able to implement new chassis without a lot of unneeded drama and foolishness. Why can't the IRL??? :confused:

[Hoop-98]

Post meeting comments...

“The league and team owners are 100 percent behind one another in building this brand and building IndyCar,” Bernard said following the meeting. “We need to be one and come together to build IndyCar, and that’s what happened today. We’re not going to agree on everything, but what we can do is come together and create the best solution to make everybody working together and taking the league in the correct direction.”
That message was echoed by Dreyer & Reinbold Racing co-owner Dennis Reinbold, who noted that Cotman will provide updates to owners at another meeting during the Kentucky Indy 300 race weekend Sept. 3-4. Cost-effectiveness, replacement parts and the technical rules were among the answers owners were seeking.
“We wanted to dispel any rumors or talk out there that we are not working in lockstep because that’s not factual,” he said. “We’re going to work very closely with Tony Cotman on the development of the new chassis for 2012. We have a lot of positive momentum for the series and 2012 will be a very important year for us with the new car, and the methodology to get that done is going to take a lot of work.
“(The owners) wanted to convey that to Randy and Tony and offer to help in any way we can. Randy and Tony have agreed to work with us and we’ll work with Dallara, which is an excellent provider to make it the best that we can. The timeline is tight, so that’s why we all need to work together to make this happen.”




To listen:
http://podcasts.indycar.com/teleconferences/Bernard_Reinbold_Presser.mp3
http://podcasts.indycar.com/teleconferences/Bernard_Reinbold_Presser.mp3


rh

http://podcasts.indycar.com/teleconferences/Bernard_Reinbold_Presser.mp3

[anthonyvop]

If they let two or more manufactures in prices would go up and I don't know of anyone who is really pleased with the current Dallara.
.

One of the biggest lies in racing is "spec is cheaper"

All one has to do is look at the high cost of the current Dallara chassis for proof.

The more In think about it the real choice was to set a rules package and open it up to anyone who could build one.

[Hoop-98]

One of the biggest lies in racing is "spec is cheaper"

All one has to do is look at the high cost of the current Dallara chassis for proof.

The more In think about it the real choice was to set a rules package and open it up to anyone who could build one.

You do realize the current Dallara was not built as a spec car?

That said:

So could you tell me how the Dallara of today compared pricewise to say the last gen Lola?

rh

[Hoop-98]

Looks like this thread has had it's Emily Latella moment :)

[e2mtt]

...
If I wanted to learn how to run a racing team, Roger Penske is one of the first people I would listen to. If I was trying to learn how to run a series, Roger Penske is one of the LAST people I would listen to... especially if he had a team in that series....


Brutal. Very True.

[grungex]

You do realize the current Dallara was not built as a spec car?

You do realize it wasn't built to run on road courses, either, right?


So could you tell me how the Dallara of today compared pricewise to say the last gen Lola?

Considering it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make it into a barely adequate road course car, I'd say it compared pretty damn poorly.

[Hoop-98]

You do realize it wasn't built to run on road courses, either, right?



Considering it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make it into a barely adequate road course car, I'd say it compared pretty damn poorly.

Considering it's power to weight it seems to perform just fine but then I don't feel any kind of rational discussion coming on from these comments.

I do believe it is considerably cheaper than the Lola, and it was not a spec car when it was designed, both points directly related to Anthony's statement, unlike your rants, totally unrelated to mine. Now if Anthony had mentioned the almost identically priced DP01 as proof that spec cars aren't cheaper, he would at least have been talking about a spec car. Which for a few hundred thousand could have likely been adapted to ovals.

rh

[grungex]

You believing it cheaper than a Lola hardly makes it so, and you accusing me of "rants" only reflects poorly on you. :rolleyes: Do you care to address the actual FACT that it cost hundreds of thousand for a "road course kit" or do you wish to continue to make up stories?

[TURN3]

Until somebody posts some actual $$$ with a credible analysis, all of this is pointless. We can speculate all day long, we still need a new car.

[Hoop-98]

The Lola was about 430K. Numerous sources

Maybe you would like to show your source on this hundreds (that would be 200K Minimum) Road Course kit.



From Autoweek 2008

http://i38.tinypic.com/2z8446b.jpg

rh

[grungex]

My source was people actually involved in open-wheel racing -- yours? The cost of converting a Dallara for road course use was well north of $200K -- are you suggesting the base car was less than that?

[Hoop-98]

My source was people actually involved in open-wheel racing -- yours? The cost of converting a Dallara for road course use was well north of $200K -- are you suggesting the base car was less than that?

Who said anything about the base car being less than 200k.
how does this asserted price compare to the Lola road course kit or Speedway kit? Is it particularly high?

So you say you have a source who told you the Road course kit exceeds 200k, well please identify this source.
I don't have one but if you do I will be happy to contact and better understand the conversion costs.

Now then, what did that have to do with my question to Anthony?

rh

[grungex]

Who said anything about the base car being less than 200k.
how does this asserted price compare to the Lola road course kit or Speedway kit? Is it particularly high?

So you say you have a source who told you the Road course kit exceeds 200k, well please identify this source.
I don't have one but if you do I will be happy to contact and better understand the conversion costs.

Now then, what did that have to do with my question to Anthony?

rh

There is no "road course kit" for the Lola, because it was actually designed for both types of racing. Unlike the Dallara. But you knew that. I hope. Have a nice evening.

[garyshell]

There is no "road course kit" for the Lola, because it was actually designed for both types of racing.

Oh, so there was no conversion needed to run a Lola on a road course vs an oval. You could take the car straight from Indy to Mod Ohio with no part swaps at all. We both know that is a ridiculous assertion.

Gary

[grungex]

That is absolutely not what I said, and you know it perfectly well.

The Dallara was never originally designed for road course use, and when the IRL decided to go road racing the teams had to pony up big bucks to convert their oval-only cars to road course use.

[grungex]

The IRL's seven-member ICONIC board had to narrow the final decision with nods to cost containment, safety, speed and design appeal. The heaviest weight – cost containment – led the board to choose a $349,000 base chassis with aero kits limited to $70,000 each. The total price is somewhere around 40 percent less than a current Dallara chassis, but still a hefty piece of coin. Link (http://autoracing1.motorsportforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=835549#post835549)

That makes the price of the current Dallara $700K, not including Penske/Ganassi mods.

[garyshell]

That is absolutely not what I said, and you know it perfectly well.

The Dallara was never originally designed for road course use, and when the IRL decided to go road racing the teams had to pony up big bucks to convert their oval-only cars to road course use.


Yes I know, but the point is there WAS a road course kit for the Lola, it was just designed at the same time as the oval course kit. Not after the fact like the Dallara.

Gary

[ezhop7]

After reading Marshall Pruett article on Speed.com its amazing how the team owners and the Indycar Series ever get anthing done. NASCAR management seem to have a better model of doing even though the owners didn't like transitioning the COT car they had to adhere to the will of NASCAR or find someother series to race. I understand the distrust of the owners against Dallara, but the owners should have been more vocal when the IONIC committe was being formed and what they wanted the new car to be. Come don't tell me that KV tech, Penske and Ganassi could not have been more vocal. One approach if not already written into the contract is after a certain time period modification of the contract to allow alternative part suppliers after a certain time period. But I still belief a certain of owners are pissed that Lola didn't win...Haas or DW (Ganassi). Hmmm it would be better if NASCAR ran Indycar.

[Hoop-98]

Heard from a team source, the chassis can have several options, about 350K. In 08 the maximum price was 309K.

Dallara Chassis (http://web.archive.org/web/20080321012217/http://www.indycar.com/tech/chassis.php)

Road Course kit in 08 was 75K.

You have to add Electronics to that plus engine lease and spares.

Depending on what you allocate as "chassis" costs you could get a much higher number.

There is nothing unusual about the Dallara road course/speedway differences than there were for Swift, Reynard, Lola.

rh

[Hoop-98]

NASCAR teams,drivers, etc cannot speak out or they can/will be fined. Might be more efficient but exactly the "American Spirit" eh...

[anthonyvop]

You do realize the current Dallara was not built as a spec car?



Actually it was one of two spec cars and for years has been "Spec"

When you have a monopoly on a product(And spec is a Monopoly) their is no incentive to price competitively.

[TURN3]

Actually it was one of two spec cars and for years has been "Spec"

When you have a monopoly on a product(And spec is a Monopoly) their is no incentive to price competitively.

If you have two cars then you don't have a "Spec" chassis, you have two competing chassis. If you have a monopoly, you have 1 (hence mono). The Panoz G-Force was actually the preferred chassis for the first couple of years. I don't know why they didn't keep up with the development of the Dallara but eventually the Dallara became "Spec" because it was the only chassis still fielding cars.

Make a point...that you can actually discuss.

[anthonyvop]

If you have two cars then you don't have a "Spec" chassis, you have two competing chassis. If you have a monopoly, you have 1 (hence mono). The Panoz G-Force was actually the preferred chassis for the first couple of years. I don't know why they didn't keep up with the development of the Dallara but eventually the Dallara became "Spec" because it was the only chassis still fielding cars.

Make a point...that you can actually discuss.


Ok
Actually the Panoz was the preferred Road Course Chassis. If you are capable of remembering, Ganassi ran one year using the Dallara on the Ovals and the Panoz on road courses.
Most teams couldn't afford that and seeing as the Dallara was a better oval car than the Panoz was for Road Courses must teams went with the Dallara. The Switch to ethanol pretty much sealed the deal for Dallara.
Because of the IRL's spec rules we are no stuck with a car that can soon qualify for vintage races.

[TURN3]

Ok
Actually the Panoz was the preferred Road Course Chassis. If you are capable of remembering, Ganassi ran one year using the Dallara on the Ovals and the Panoz on road courses.
Most teams couldn't afford that and seeing as the Dallara was a better oval car than the Panoz was for Road Courses must teams went with the Dallara. The Switch to ethanol pretty much sealed the deal for Dallara.
Because of the IRL's spec rules we are no stuck with a car that can soon qualify for vintage races.

Actually, I do remember that Ganassi used both chassis for the road and ovals. I also remember that there were no road courses at all and that G-Force was the preferred chassis initially. In fact, Helio and Gil split between the two at Indy one year. Another thing I remember is that you were arguing that the fact Hoop stated Dallara was not built as a spec chassis, and as you've clearly established now...you do in fact know that. I think you owe him a tip of the hat at the very least.

[Hoop-98]

Ok
Actually the Panoz was the preferred Road Course Chassis. If you are capable of remembering, Ganassi ran one year using the Dallara on the Ovals and the Panoz on road courses.
Most teams couldn't afford that and seeing as the Dallara was a better oval car than the Panoz was for Road Courses must teams went with the Dallara. The Switch to ethanol pretty much sealed the deal for Dallara.
Because of the IRL's spec rules we are no stuck with a car that can soon qualify for vintage races.

On what basis was it the preferred?

2005

http://www.indycar.com/var/historicalstats/2005/2005-03-box-score-stpete.pdf


http://www.indycar.com/var/historicalstats/2005/2005-16-box-score-watkinsglen.pdf

http://www.indycar.com/var/historicalstats/2005/2005-14-box-score-infineon.pdf

How did Ethanol make the Dallara, when was the switch to Ethanol, what was the Panoz-G-Force status the year before, how does the Dallara compare to the Lola, DP01 pricewise?

Don't worry, the day Anthony tips his hat is the day I reexamine my life lol... jk

rh

[Hoop-98]

Anthony is strong on opinion, weak on anything objective...IMHO

[anthonyvop]

On what basis was it the preferred?

2005

http://www.indycar.com/var/historicalstats/2005/2005-03-box-score-stpete.pdf


http://www.indycar.com/var/historicalstats/2005/2005-16-box-score-watkinsglen.pdf

http://www.indycar.com/var/historicalstats/2005/2005-14-box-score-infineon.pdf

How did Ethanol make the Dallara, when was the switch to Ethanol, what was the Panoz-G-Force status the year before, how does the Dallara compare to the Lola, DP01 pricewise?

Don't worry, the day Anthony tips his hat is the day I reexamine my life lol... jk

rh

Ahhh Hoopy!!! The serial defender of all that is Dallara.

explain to me why a top team like Ganassi would use the Dallara on the ovals and then turn around and use a Panoz on the road course?

Well? Huh? Crunch some number sweety.

BTW..As it was explained to me by more than one IRL engineer.....The switch to Ethanol caused a higher heat rejection into cooling and lubrication systems of over 30%. Dallara was able to be adapted easier and cheaper while the Panoz had some issues....expensive issues, but by then few teams where using them so it wasn't financially viable.

[Hoop-98]

Why dont we meet and discuss eh> I promise no violence sweety, face to face debate your time your place at my expense, just recorded? So all can interpret eh??

You game, I am....

[grungex]

Heard from a team source, the chassis can have several options, about 350K. In 08 the maximum price was 309K.

Dallara Chassis (http://web.archive.org/web/20080321012217/http://www.indycar.com/tech/chassis.php)

Road Course kit in 08 was 75K.

You have to add Electronics to that plus engine lease and spares.

Depending on what you allocate as "chassis" costs you could get a much higher number.

There is nothing unusual about the Dallara road course/speedway differences than there were for Swift, Reynard, Lola.

rh

Wow, your delusion is spectacular. I'd suggest finding a new source, as this one is absolutely full of excrement. And there is plenty different about Dallara vs. the others, it was flat-out unsuitable as designed for road courses. Period. Just give it up, you are clearly in over your head.

[garyshell]

Wow, your delusion is spectacular. I'd suggest finding a new source, as this one is absolutely full of excrement. And there is plenty different about Dallara vs. the others, it was flat-out unsuitable as designed for road courses. Period. Just give it up, you are clearly in over your head.


Got ANYTHING other than rhetoric to back up your claims?

Gary

[Otto-Matic]

BTW..As it was explained to me by more than one IRL engineer.....The switch to Ethanol caused a higher heat rejection into cooling and lubrication systems of over 30%. Dallara was able to be adapted easier and cheaper while the Panoz had some issues....expensive issues, but by then few teams where using them so it wasn't financially viable.

I remember this, it was a $$$ issue to rectify the Panoz trouble and at that time I think the cost to fix it was more money that it was really worth to them.

[glauistean]

They have. It was just that robin Miller has to wait a bit before he published a story he stole.

Kirby wrote about it almost 2 weeks ago.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2010/the_way_it_is_no249.html

"He stole". That is a serious accusation Anthonyvop. There is a possibility that he was waiting to see what happened after the dust settled before releasing his story. In fact there are many other stories out there with pretty much the identical same information. Marshall Pruett has the same information but the only thing he wrote was a more detailed without any sources to specifically quote for his article.

If I were an owner I would be pretty scared if my name was not Penske or Ganassi or even the twin KV.

Not allowing other people to build parts bedsides Dallara is a huge mistake. Not allowing the "teams" is even bigger.

So you buy a car for 350,000 and you lose a wing in practice. The spare wing is "there goes $50,000" as Jimmy V said years ago.

Suspension parts. Team build. 100% less expensive if built themselves. Brokered out and it costs at least 50% less.

Those are valid arguments from the owners and no matter what what I may feel that the big guns can afford it matters not a hoot. They run a business. Go with Dallara 100% in spare parts and you will see the unemployment rate rising.

[nigelred5]

Maybe they should consider retaining the current chassis, open it up to new engines including the GRE, and open the current chassis up to some new 3rd party aero development like what is proposed for the new chassis. It's not like we're really getting much different with the proposed new car. This way, they retain their gear and just purchase some new aero bits. again. not markedly different than the future car

Unfortunately, there's not much they can do to improve the inherent ugliness and weight of the current chassis, since the probems start at the tub itself.

[grungex]

Please point out the "rhetoric". There's more revisionist blindness in this thread than anything I've seen in quite a while.

[grungex]

Got ANYTHING other than rhetoric to back up your claims?

Gary

Please point out the so-called "rhetoric". Thanks.

[garyshell]

Wow, your delusion is spectacular. I'd suggest finding a new source, as this one is absolutely full of excrement. And there is plenty different about Dallara vs. the others, it was flat-out unsuitable as designed for road courses. Period. Just give it up, you are clearly in over your head.


Please point out the so-called "rhetoric". Thanks.

rhet·o·ric   [ret-er-ik]
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Given this definition, I'd suggest your entire message filled the bill.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

rhet·o·ric   [ret-er-ik]
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Given this definition, I'd suggest your entire message filled the bill.

Gary

Pet peeve of mine the way people use the word "Rhetoric" incorrectly.

rhet·o·ric
noun \ˈre-tə-rik\
Definition of RHETORIC
1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3: verbal communication : discourse

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

[garyshell]

Pet peeve of mine the way people use the word "Rhetoric" incorrectly.

rhet·o·ric
noun \ˈre-tə-rik\
Definition of RHETORIC
1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3: verbal communication : discourse

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric


Pet peeve of mine, folks who think they have a monopoly on knowledge.

rhet·o·ric [ret-er-ik]
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1300–50; < L rhētorica < Gk rhētorikḕ ( téchnē ) rhetorical (art); r. ME rethorik < ML rēthorica, L rhētorica, as above

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric

Gary

[Easy Drifter]

Could we quit arguing over the past and get back to the title of the thread?
It does appear the owners and the IC are now at least on the same chapter of the book if not the same page.

[Chris R]

Could we quit arguing over the past and get back to the title of the thread?
It does appear the owners and the IC are now at least on the same chapter of the book if not the same page.
+1

I mean c'mon guys - are you reading what you are typing??? (I only say that because "do you hear yourself talking?" doesn't seem to apply). The word definitely has a pretty neutral traditional use/definition. However, as it has been used colloquially in recent years it clearly has negative connotations and pretty much has come to mean "BS".... so really, you are both right in regards to the use of the word.

so, how about those Indycar owners??? I hear they aren't quite as mutinous as first thought....

[ezhop7]

Robin Miller's latest article on speedtv.com is spot on!
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/miller-both-barrels/

[Mark in Oshawa]

Robin Miller's latest article on speedtv.com is spot on!
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/miller-both-barrels/

For those with their head's too far up their wazoo's, what Miller states is the unvarnished reality that the car owners should just shut up. As Jag pointed out, Roger Penske or Ganassi would be great guys to ask on how to run a race team, but they are the last guys who should dictate how to run a series. The series of idiots and losers these two had a hand in hiring (idiots and losers in how they did their CART leadership, not in other places) is epic, and Robin's list of what Randy has had to deal with is proof positive that these guys cant see the forest for the tree's.

As I stated 3 pages back, the decision is made, they had their guy on the panel. Last I looked, Gil De Ferran and the Penske's are pretty tight. Being a partner with Jay Penske would make one assume Gil wasn't saying anyting on the Iconic Panel that Roger wouldn't have had for knowledge of, so Roger should shut the hell up whining about it now. Chip, well he is just ticked that his Delta Wing is being shut out and he has spent all the money on it. Well Chip, no one asked you to do so, and if you go so far beyond the box people wont accept it, then that was your gamble, and it isn't their job to make you right.

Honest to god, when AJ Foyt is the sane one on this deal, you know things have gotten silly. He is behind this all the way, and pointed out that the big teams always are looking for things to whine about...


Oh ya... on that other feud, arguing tech stuff with Hoop is a dangerous game. Don't try it at home kids...

[Easy Drifter]

Miller has done it all from flunky to driver to writer and has many contacts, not all of whom would want to be revealed.
Methinks he is right most of the time.
The increased car count is an indication some people agree with Randy and where he is trying to go. It is going to take time and we will probably have to put up with incompentent ride buyers for a while.
For those who are complaining about foreign drivers look what Sarah Fisher is doing. Too bad certain big team owners wouldn't try and follow suit.
Yes I agree about arguing with Hoop. I have a pretty good understanding of how race cars work after being a crew chief and parts designer but he blows me out of the tub!

[grungex]

rhet·o·ric   [ret-er-ik]
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Given this definition, I'd suggest your entire message filled the bill.

Gary

In other words, you have a contrary OPINION, and don't care to discuss FACTS. Do you actually have anything besides pompous insults to add to the discussion? Why don't you just go over to the place that rhymes with Crack-Whorem? You would fit in just fine. :rolleyes:

[garyshell]

Wow, your delusion is spectacular. I'd suggest finding a new source, as this one is absolutely full of excrement. And there is plenty different about Dallara vs. the others, it was flat-out unsuitable as designed for road courses. Period. Just give it up, you are clearly in over your head.


In other words, you have a contrary OPINION, and don't care to discuss FACTS. Do you actually have anything besides pompous insults to add to the discussion? Why don't you just go over to the place that rhymes with Crack-Whorem? You would fit in just fine. :rolleyes:

Hmm, that original message sure was full of FACTS and totally devoid of pompous insults, huh?

I'm here and have been since 2004, I'm not leaving.

Gary

[grungex]

Are you Robert's knight in shining armour now? You still haven't proffered any FACTS to support your insults towards me. Do you have some evidence the Dallara is somehow better than my description of it, or just a snarky attitude because you've been here too long?

[garyshell]

Are you Robert's knight in shining armour now? You still haven't proffered any FACTS to support your insults towards me. Do you have some evidence the Dallara is somehow better than my description of it, or just a snarky attitude because you've been here too long?


Yawn. :s nore:

Gary

[Bob Riebe]

Pet peeve of mine, folks who think they have a monopoly on knowledge.

rhet·o·ric [ret-er-ik]
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1300–50; < L rhētorica < Gk rhētorikḕ ( téchnē ) rhetorical (art); r. ME rethorik < ML rēthorica, L rhētorica, as above

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric

GaryI do not know what dictionary your definitions list comes from, but the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the one which holds rank, above all others, among scholars, backs-up Tony's definitions not yours.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Glad he is mad at someone besides me......

I think all this talk of the DW says to me the Cheepster is mad they wont validate his decision to fund the R and D on this thing....and is moaning about it. I heard Penske quoted on Speed last Sunday that he is ok with the ICONIC decision but he wanted more input..which says to me Penske is looking for a way to shade things in his favour. Typical Roger..and we all know and love him for it.

Cotman will stomp on this crap over the next year..and I think it will go away because the owners saw what happens when people don't resolve their differences and try to take their toys and go away.....

If everyone involved is rational, this will happen and in time, the owners will get over it. The whole reason the rational stuff went out the window because an irrational man tried to right a perceived wrong going back to Dan Gurney's white paper.

After going to the IMS and their wonderful museum; I can understand partially why Tony was so defensive about Tony Hulman's legacy and his role in running USAC....but in the end, what happened was irrational. I don't see any of the players being that stupid....even Chip, who has kept pouring money into the Delta Wing. I speculated elsewhere, and here that he may be playing for 5 to 7 years down the road.....

[Jag_Warrior]

If it's true that certain teams and certain cars can fail tech and not be penalized, then does it really matter which car they choose? Seems like that's what the owners (the ones who actually have to pass tech) would be upset about. Whether it's the Dallara or the Delta Wing, if Penske or Ganassi develop an aero package, and what they have to sell other teams isn't really what they've been using, then what's the diff?

I don't know how bad the favoritism is, but given the fact that no one other than Penske, Ganassi and Andretti have won oval races in several years, it does make one wonder. How many oval race victories by the Big 3 did last night's race make, 53 in a row? If the stats presented by Versus were correct, then I think it's 53 - and that's pretty shameful (for a "spec series").