-
Home
- TV Shows
- TV Schedule
- NASCAR
-
Formula 1
- Auto Racing
- Moto Racing
- Cars
- Bikes
- Store
- Social
- Games
- Mobile
- Deals
- Videos
- Photos
- Home
- TV Shows
-
TV Schedule
-
SPEED Showcase
-
- NASCAR
- Formula 1
- Auto Racing
- Moto Racing
- Cars
- Bikes
- Store
- Social
- Mobile
- Deals
- Videos
- Photos
IndyCar
INDYCAR: 2012 Aero Kit Q&A
What will it cost to produce a 2012 aero kit? How about to break even? And how should the rules be written? Marshall Pruett does some digging…
The IZOD IndyCar Series is still waiting for someone other than Dallara to sign up to make a 2012 aero kit, but a familiar company thinks the economics to do so are more reasonable than initially predicted. (IndyCar.com)
After looking at the costs and complexities of producing a 2012 IndyCar engine, the topic of designing and producing ‘aero kits’ for the 2012 is the next item to go under SPEED.com’s microscope.
The author of the aero kit concept is unknown -- ICONIC panel member Tony Purnell was credited for bringing the idea to the committee -- but the notion of using a spec chassis while allowing multiple body kits to be used goes back to at least the 1990s when open-wheel spec series came to prominence.
With the IZOD IndyCar Series plan, aero kits will sell for a maximum of $70,000. For the first year only, the 2012 Dallara chassis can be purchased with a kit from the Italian manufacturer for $45,000. In 2013, Dallara’s kit will move up to the standard $70,000 price point.
The aero kit concept, as it applies to the next IndyCar model, has received as much negativity as it has praise, with this author falling on the ‘not overly convinced it’s a smart move’ side of the argument.
A large part of my disbelief in the 2012 aero kit concept stems from the economics behind the plan. I like the idea of multiple body styles -- even if they won’t look drastically different – but according to some people, the cash required to manufacture a kit one is close to what it would cost to build a 2012 engine.
Wait. Building a body kit will could cost almost as much to produce a brand-new motor? That can’t be accurate, can it?
To get to the truths about the 2012 aero kits – and there are multiple truths at play – we’ll need to review a few claims, quotes and facts.
Purnell, who also presented the aero kit plan to the public during the July 14th launch, uttered this rather head scratching sentence about the costs to produce a kit: “There's a framework here to showcase your technical prowess without a major raid on the piggy bank.”
Moments after the 2012 car announcement, renowned IndyCar designer Bruce Ashmore had a conflicting view on Purnell’s ‘easy on the piggy bank’ assessment.
“You’re talking several millions of dollars. So you’ve got to sell a lot of kits to recoup your investment.”
Ashmore went on to say that provided new kits could be sold every year, there was some light at the end of the tunnel for kit manufacturers.
“I think it’s the type of thing that once you’re in, you see they announced there’s a four year package and you can sell a new kit every year for four years then you can make a business case out of it. It’s all a risk because you’ve got to win – but I think it’s something that a little company like myself could partner with a big company. Say a Lockheed or a Boeing or Ford or somebody who wanted to come in, I have the potential to partner with some of those companies…that’s the only way.”
2012 car chief Tony Cotman tempered Ashmore’s expectations, explaining that asking teams to buy updated aero kits year after year isn’t what the series is looking for.
“You don't want people having to buy all-new kits every year. Even if it's only 70 grand per car, or [140] grand for your primary car and the backup. Some might say it’s still better than the old days where we used to have to buy new cars every year. Well, this isn't the old days.”
In an interview with Purnell last month -- and following the ‘piggy bank’ claim he made -- he repeatedly described the 2012 aero kit costs as being ‘marginal.’ After the fourth instance of hearing him use the word, I asked Purnell to quantify exactly what he considered to be a marginal expense.
“I don't see the costs for the first [kit builder other than Dallara] being more than in the $2 to $4 million range to develop. And do a pretty damn good job for that.”
So, Purnell’s assessment on aero kit costs aligns with Ashmore’s, for the most part.
Good. At least we have some agreement here.
To better understand Purnell’s estimated aero kit price tag, it’s worth looking through the lens from his perspective. Some of the small to medium-sized F1 teams can spend upwards of $50 million a year –more than what all of the IZOD IndyCar Series teams will spend combined this season – so for an ex-F1 man like Purnell, maybe he considers $2 to $4 million to be chump change. In that scenario – and only that scenario – aero kit costs can be considered marginal.
“Realistically, for a Formula One team, say, a McLaren or Ferrari, the marginal cost of developing aero kits is going to be pretty low,” Purnell continued. “They've got the wind tunnels, they've got the CFD, they’ve got the engineers, they've got the know-how.”
If we were talking about F1 adopting a spec-car-and-aero-kit plan, a figure of $2 to $4 million would indeed be a drop in the bucket. The disconnect here, unfortunately, is that IndyCar teams and most potential aero kit constructors don’t have the eight- and nine-figure budgets found in F1. For them, $2 to $4 million represents a huge sum of money to acquire before they can join the aero kit game.
Purnell went on to say that if the aero kit concept is embraced by multiple constructors and the competition between kit manufacturers jumps into high gear, he could see the costs going much higher.
“And then you know what motorsports is like, you get two or three people doing that and suddenly it's either cleverness or steamrolling it with dollars. At the end of the day, [if] somebody approaches it with a $10 million budget; they're going to produce a very good car.”
If you’re keeping score, an ICONIC panel member paints aero kit costs as marginal, a respected IndyCar designer says the true costs to bring an aero kit to market are anything BUT marginal but if new kits can be sold every year the finances more sense, yet the 2012 chief says they do not want teams having to buy revised kits every season.
As I mentioned before, there appear to be a few different versions of the truth at play here.
The bottom line is that producing an aero kit won’t be cheap. But the most pressing question to answer is which end of Purnell’s $2 to $4 million range is most accurate. Could it be even lower than the $2 million level?
According to Swift Engineering president Jan Refsdal, the former CART IndyCar chassis constructor could produce a 2012 aero kit for as little as half of Purnell’s bottom figure.
The author of the aero kit concept is unknown -- ICONIC panel member Tony Purnell was credited for bringing the idea to the committee -- but the notion of using a spec chassis while allowing multiple body kits to be used goes back to at least the 1990s when open-wheel spec series came to prominence.
With the IZOD IndyCar Series plan, aero kits will sell for a maximum of $70,000. For the first year only, the 2012 Dallara chassis can be purchased with a kit from the Italian manufacturer for $45,000. In 2013, Dallara’s kit will move up to the standard $70,000 price point.
The aero kit concept, as it applies to the next IndyCar model, has received as much negativity as it has praise, with this author falling on the ‘not overly convinced it’s a smart move’ side of the argument.
A large part of my disbelief in the 2012 aero kit concept stems from the economics behind the plan. I like the idea of multiple body styles -- even if they won’t look drastically different – but according to some people, the cash required to manufacture a kit one is close to what it would cost to build a 2012 engine.
Wait. Building a body kit will could cost almost as much to produce a brand-new motor? That can’t be accurate, can it?
To get to the truths about the 2012 aero kits – and there are multiple truths at play – we’ll need to review a few claims, quotes and facts.
Purnell, who also presented the aero kit plan to the public during the July 14th launch, uttered this rather head scratching sentence about the costs to produce a kit: “There's a framework here to showcase your technical prowess without a major raid on the piggy bank.”
Moments after the 2012 car announcement, renowned IndyCar designer Bruce Ashmore had a conflicting view on Purnell’s ‘easy on the piggy bank’ assessment.
“You’re talking several millions of dollars. So you’ve got to sell a lot of kits to recoup your investment.”
Ashmore went on to say that provided new kits could be sold every year, there was some light at the end of the tunnel for kit manufacturers.
“I think it’s the type of thing that once you’re in, you see they announced there’s a four year package and you can sell a new kit every year for four years then you can make a business case out of it. It’s all a risk because you’ve got to win – but I think it’s something that a little company like myself could partner with a big company. Say a Lockheed or a Boeing or Ford or somebody who wanted to come in, I have the potential to partner with some of those companies…that’s the only way.”
2012 car chief Tony Cotman tempered Ashmore’s expectations, explaining that asking teams to buy updated aero kits year after year isn’t what the series is looking for.
“You don't want people having to buy all-new kits every year. Even if it's only 70 grand per car, or [140] grand for your primary car and the backup. Some might say it’s still better than the old days where we used to have to buy new cars every year. Well, this isn't the old days.”
In an interview with Purnell last month -- and following the ‘piggy bank’ claim he made -- he repeatedly described the 2012 aero kit costs as being ‘marginal.’ After the fourth instance of hearing him use the word, I asked Purnell to quantify exactly what he considered to be a marginal expense.
“I don't see the costs for the first [kit builder other than Dallara] being more than in the $2 to $4 million range to develop. And do a pretty damn good job for that.”
So, Purnell’s assessment on aero kit costs aligns with Ashmore’s, for the most part.
Good. At least we have some agreement here.
To better understand Purnell’s estimated aero kit price tag, it’s worth looking through the lens from his perspective. Some of the small to medium-sized F1 teams can spend upwards of $50 million a year –more than what all of the IZOD IndyCar Series teams will spend combined this season – so for an ex-F1 man like Purnell, maybe he considers $2 to $4 million to be chump change. In that scenario – and only that scenario – aero kit costs can be considered marginal.
“Realistically, for a Formula One team, say, a McLaren or Ferrari, the marginal cost of developing aero kits is going to be pretty low,” Purnell continued. “They've got the wind tunnels, they've got the CFD, they’ve got the engineers, they've got the know-how.”
If we were talking about F1 adopting a spec-car-and-aero-kit plan, a figure of $2 to $4 million would indeed be a drop in the bucket. The disconnect here, unfortunately, is that IndyCar teams and most potential aero kit constructors don’t have the eight- and nine-figure budgets found in F1. For them, $2 to $4 million represents a huge sum of money to acquire before they can join the aero kit game.
Purnell went on to say that if the aero kit concept is embraced by multiple constructors and the competition between kit manufacturers jumps into high gear, he could see the costs going much higher.
“And then you know what motorsports is like, you get two or three people doing that and suddenly it's either cleverness or steamrolling it with dollars. At the end of the day, [if] somebody approaches it with a $10 million budget; they're going to produce a very good car.”
If you’re keeping score, an ICONIC panel member paints aero kit costs as marginal, a respected IndyCar designer says the true costs to bring an aero kit to market are anything BUT marginal but if new kits can be sold every year the finances more sense, yet the 2012 chief says they do not want teams having to buy revised kits every season.
As I mentioned before, there appear to be a few different versions of the truth at play here.
The bottom line is that producing an aero kit won’t be cheap. But the most pressing question to answer is which end of Purnell’s $2 to $4 million range is most accurate. Could it be even lower than the $2 million level?
According to Swift Engineering president Jan Refsdal, the former CART IndyCar chassis constructor could produce a 2012 aero kit for as little as half of Purnell’s bottom figure.
INDYCAR BRAZIL
LATEST HEADLINES: AUTO-RACING
-
INDYCAR: 49ers Coach Jim Harbaugh To Pace The Indy 500
Jim Harbaugh, head coach of the San Francisco 49ers, will drive the… -
MILLER: Dinner With Legends
It’s become an annual event and, as my pal and longtime Indy… -
VIDEO: Dyson Tech Talk - Tires 101
The art of going fast: what kind of feedback does a driver want from… -
VIDEO: SPEEDing Through Hinchtown, Episode 2
Andretti Autosport IndyCar driver James Hinchcliffe utilizes the… -
LE MANS: Driver Lineups For LM24 Finalized
Seats at Delta-ADR, Morand Racing, JMW Motorsport and others confirmed… -
PHOTOS: V8 Supercars COTA Gallery
UPDATED: View more than 150 photos from Austin as V8 Supercars Austin… -
GT: Black Falcon Mercedes Wins Rain-Soaked Nurburgring 24
Sean Edwards, Bernd Schneider, Jeroen Bleekemolen and Nicki Thiim… - More News
