INDYCAR: Randy Bernard 2012 Q&A

IndyCar

INDYCAR: Randy Bernard 2012 Q&A

With more questions than answers coming out from the 2012 announcement, Randy Bernard fills in some of the blanks for SPEED.com

Marshall Pruett | Posted July 21, 2010 Hayward, CA

Randy Bernard delves into more details about the 2012 IZOD IndyCar Series plans, and answers some of the questions and conspiracies that have arisen. (LAT)

With more questions than answers coming out from the 2012 announcement, Randy Bernard was a great sport when he agreed to field a list of questions that weren't pre-screened or polished for public consumption.

While he didn't have answers for everything that we posed, he didn't flinch on the tougher items.

Marshall Pruett: The term ‘Indy Safety Cell’ has been used to describe the car the series has commissioned Dallara to build. That’s a complete car, minus engine and possibly bodywork. Why use the ‘safety cell’ term when it’s a completely inaccurate representation? It's a regular chassis like people can buy today. In the announcement last week, Brian Barnhart said the Dallara would be called an ‘IndyCar’ – a generic term – until someone branded it, like a Ford or a Swift. Is that true? If someone buys a Dallara and bolts in a Honda, would that be an IndyCar-Honda, according to Brian, or a Dallara-Honda?

Randy Bernard: Dallara. That's a Dallara-Honda in my opinion. You might use a Ford or GM or GE. So what we wanted to do, if our concept works right – and a couple of auto manufactures do the same thing with their cars, it’s basically the same monocoque – but then they put a different set of clothes on the car and give it a different look. And what our whole thinking was, was this is a way to create a consistent message, this is, the safety cell, was what was essential for safety and then the other parts were to give it a different look and to create identity and brand for certain types of companies or for companies that buy it, do it.

Let's say in May, let's say you start the season with the Dallara-Honda but in May Lockheed Martin comes out with clothes you want to put on it, well, all of a sudden it would be the Lockheed Martin-Honda.

MP: I listened as a number of ICONIC members told me in person last week that they believe fans don’t really care about technology when it comes to IndyCar racing – that the bodywork is all that needs to be different. Our own Robin Miller said the same last Sunday on Wind Tunnel – I’ve given a differing opinion on this already, but I haven’t asked what you think. Do you really believe IndyCar fans only care about different looks and not what’s underneath?

RB: I think that what they felt like, you're not going to see your fans walking down the street saying, “What kind of underwing does that car have?” because they don't know what's underneath the car, most of them. Very, very, very, very few probably understand that, is what [the ICONIC panel] feel.

MP: Rightly or wrongly, there’s a growing belief that Dallara was always going to get the contract to build a spec chassis – that two or three different chassis manufacturers were not going to be allowed. If you look at the extremely low price the ICONIC panel set for a 2012 Dallara -- $385,000 with bodywork – the entire process the panel went through over the past few months seems like an exercise that never had more than one car in mind. Not at that price point. The only way a chassis manufacturer would accept the challenge to build a 2012 car would be if they had sole supplier status because they couldn’t turn a profit unless massive numbers of car sales were guaranteed. Didn’t the ICONIC panel, in essence, engineer the 2012 series to only ever have a single chassis supplier?

RB: Well, here’s what really it comes down to on that. On the RFP, on the Request For Proposal, we had it put in there: “…on an exclusive and a nonexclusive basis.” And so the exclusive, it was like they all talked to one another, it was amazing. I was blown away with how close everybody was on the pricing. Pricing never was an issue. And then on non-exclusive, it was a huge number. It was only $10 or 15,000 less than what we're currently paying. And this was a huge letdown. Our expectations were that it’d probably come in at $450,000 or something like that, not as high as it was but not as low as it could be if it was as exclusive, but it would allow us to have two or three out there. But when it came in at that price the first thing these guys said, “We know what's going to happen." Because we’ve shown it. In one year, two years from now, we're going to be back at a spec series and some are going to be winners and some are going to be big losers; the ones that pick the wrong car lose a ton of money.”

And is that really helping the series, because three years down the road we’re back to exactly what we are right now? So that was really where I think it started getting interesting was we kind of all felt let down, we all felt, oh, what's the next step, when we left the room that night after the presentation, because we were dead set on having two or three different chassis but we were dead set on keeping the prices minimal for people. This was the only way that we could realistically come up with.

And here's how much my point, when I came in, I didn’t know the Dallara was chosen. I know that I could tell you… I would say, we were probably leaning in that direction but I will say that when we put the ICONIC Committee on it, it was anything and everything. I mean, it wouldn't have surprised me if Delta Wing has been picked. I wanted to know what was in the best interest [of the series], and when everything was said and done it was Dallara. I don't think it will be just Honda, I think it will be others, too, involved in that. And I don't think it's fair to say it [was always going to be] Dallara; Dallara’s doing the safety cell. But I’m still optimistic that Swift and BAT will compete [with aero kits].

MP: Lola is said to have made a presentation that also included a production facility in Indiana – is that true? I’ve also heard that one of the reasons they weren’t chosen was because Dallara’s new production facility had a state jobs initiative – correct?

RB: [Lola] didn't put the amount of detail that Dallara had in theirs, probably. It really came down to: Who did we have the most faith in to do what we wanted to do?

MP: Did you visit the production facilities of each of the chassis manufacturers to get a feel, in person, of their staff, technology, capabilities, etc?

RB: No, we felt that if we were going to go to one, we had to go to all. And there was just not enough time to do that.

The ICONIC panel have only scratched the surface of the work that awaits them. (LAT)

MP: There seemed to be more questions than answers to come out of last Wednesday’s announcement – much of it critical. Did you expect that, and are you prepared to keep answering the litany of questions that come out each day?

RB: We've got to answer those critical questions. I mean, I think that’s important for us to do. I think it's very important for us to do.

MP: All of the chassis manufacturers wanted exclusivity, but the panel presented that like it a sticking point – something that led to some not getting the contract. Was this a case of those constructors not wanting to do the ‘aero kit’ plan the panel came up with – not wanting others to re-brand cars they produced? Was the aero kit idea posed to all manufacturers to see if they were or were not interested?

RB: I don't want to get into which ones we… we narrowed it down to those two picked and one of them was Dallara; there was one other one. And [the aero kit] was Tony Purnell’s idea; there was I think a van full of guys after the meeting was over and they said we need to figure out how we can make this work.

MP: I’ve heard that a license fee will be required to produce aero kits – something in the $200,000 range – is that true?

RB: RB: No. We're not even near that. I have no idea.

MP: Getting your technical staff in place is a critical need for the series if the 2012 deadlines are to be met for chassis and engines. What’s the deadline you’ve set to have a technical director in place, and do you have one established yet?

RB: No, right now I'm getting just more feedback again. Most likely, we’re at what the ICONIC Advisory Committee has to say on this.

MP: I’m one of many who believe Tony Cotman is just the man to be your technical director. Unlike the 2012 chassis, I don’t see a need for multiple candidates here, but that’s just me. Regardless, is Tony at the top of the list, or are there others being considered?

RB: I think it's very important for us to make sure that we listen to all the feedback and make sure that we make the best decision that we can, and I think Tony Cotman is an excellent choice. But I don't think it's fair for us just to jump on and… I want to make sure that we’re not shooting from the hip. It's important that this advisory committee is in tune on all this stuff and that there is a collective process so that when we're choosing, we know he is the best, we just don't think he's the best.

MP: Selecting a technical director – someone who will spearhead the chassis rules process – is easy when compared to what is needed to establish engine regulations. I don’t see this as being something one man can do – both chassis and engine regs – do you agree, and if so, how will you go about finding an engine guru?

RB: It'll be a cooperative effort amongst all executive teams. I think, again, the Iconic Advisory Committee will look at those – it might not be an individual, it might be an engineering company; it could be Ricardo, it could be Menard, it could be a number of different [options] – we've got a way who it makes the most sense for us and what makes the most sense for us and we've got to do it in a very decisive, articulate and coordinated manner.

MP: As I see it, you need to select your TD, build your technical staff, get your engine regs done and then need to get the chassis regs in place, and in that order. What’s the timeline for getting your technical house in order, and to come up with the first framework for 2012 rules?

RB: This, again, I will bounce it off a lot of my key people, the advisory committee, but the way I see it, we have to have somebody writing the rules first. The need the rules within the next three months, is what I'm hearing. And then I think we have to see how much competition there is going to be before we know how much we need to beef up our staff. I mean, if it's exclusive then it's not going to be as necessary if there’s two or three different car manufacturers; so I think that we've got to put everything in order and that's kind of the order that I would do it.

MP: I’ll be honest, I’m concerned about how much of the 2012 intentions have been presented. From the outset, words like ‘relevant’ and cost-effective’ have been held up as core values – filters, effectively -- of what the decisions related to the 2012 car would be passed through. But the aero kit concept is one that is neither relevant to anyone other than IndyCar teams and constructors, and it’s brutally expensive. Teams spend more on aero each year than any other performance category. How does the choice to open aero through the use of aero kits conform to cost-effective, relevant technology?

RB: Tony Purnell and some of the advisory committee would have to answer there; I'm not really sure of the answer to that. I think that there is some cool stuff that we've talked about, though.”

Marshall Pruett is SPEED.com’s Auto Racing Editor, and also covers IndyCar and sportscar racing for the site. Pruett grew up at ‘Pruett's Olde English Garage,’ his father's shelter for abused foreign cars, and spent his childhood being dragged across the West Coast to help with his dad's amateur racing exploits.

Pruett spent 20 years working in the IRL, CART, IMSA, and most of the known open-wheel feeder series before retiring from active duty in 2001. And in case you were wondering, he isn’t related to Scott Pruett.

Marshall lives in Northern California with his wife Shabral, and can be emailed . He can also be harassed on Twitter .