PRUETT: 2012

IndyCar

PRUETT: 2012

With the IZOD IndyCar Series set to announce the findings from the ICONIC panel, here's a Hail Mary of final ideas for the 2012 car.

Marshall Pruett | Posted June 30, 2010 Hayward, CA

A world of options exist to choose from for 2012. Marshall Pruett hopes the ICONIC panel will make a few bold changes to improve the promotional and commercial aspects of the IZOD IndyCar Series.

With the IZOD IndyCar Series set to announce the findings from the ICONIC panel (CEO Randy Bernard’s group of industry experts tasked with developing the 2012 IndyCar series rules) any minute now, I figure this is my final chance to implore the ICONIC board to consider a number of items I’ve been lobbying for since the beginning of the year.

By talking with IndyCar insiders and fans of open-wheel racing, I’ve also found that many people share my opinions – not all of them, but enough to warrant one last Hail Mary to Bernard and Co. to carefully consider how they choose to steer the IndyCar Series into the future. Here we go...

Chassis

After a few months of looking at the different chassis options, I’ve revised my original stance a bit. When the DeltaWing was launched I said that IndyCar needed a game changer for 2012 – something to shake things up – and the DeltaWing was the perfect car to recapture America’s interest in open-wheel racing.

I still feel that way, and think that the DeltaWing, as wacky as it is, needs to be included amongst the approved 2012 chassis builders, but I’m also seeing the value in two additional types of chassis.

Simply put, we need the ICONIC panel to accept something a little bit IRL, something a little bit ChampCar and something a little bit crazy.

Dallara is the perfect choice for an IRL-style car. The Italian firm can deliver a 2012 chassis that sports an overhead air intake – the most identifiable IRL chassis trait, but let’s be frank. Dallara’s current renderings of 2012 cars are so wildly uninspired, I’m not sure what to do other than to suggest they throw their first ideas out and start over again.

Dallara actually has a fine eye for style and can pen a car that pleases the eye and the stopwatch. They produce the HRT F1 car, Audi’s sportscar chassis, the current Indy Lights chassis and their famed F3 car – all of which look nothing like the dog we currently have.

The ICONIC panel needs to mandate that their 2012 car must look nothing like the IR07 from the cockpit forward. That would make the IRL diehards happy and it would up the IR07’s sexy factor by a thousand percent.

For the CART/ChampCar chassis – what fans associate with turbo cars, low engine cowls and shapely curves -- I think Lola has the right idea and their dual-purpose car makes a lot of sense. With the same tub serving double-duty in Lights and IndyCar, team owners are given unprecedented value. The current Indy Lights car is a bust; IndyCar team owners will tell you in confidence that it does not arm Lights drivers with the skills needed to graduate directly into the big series. Something has to change.

The Lights/IndyCar chassis as Lola proposes – one that requires a change of bodywork and engine to switch between series -- makes it easier for Lights teams to move up, and gives IndyCar teams the option to field a Lights team with largely the same equipment, or to sell their used IndyCars to Lights teams.

Swift is also a great candidate for the CART/ChampCar-inspired 2012 car, and they also fit the dual-purpose model. Their proposed car is indeed an upgraded Formula Nippon (think Japanese Indy Lights) chassis, so they have actually been following this path from the start.

Dallara, with their current Lights and GP2 chassis, is also more than capable of manufacturing a 2012 car that suits both categories.

Finally, the DeltaWing is the perfect ‘something crazy’ car. As the majority of people have said since its launch, it needs just as much work to its nose and chassis as the Dallara IR07. Both cars have placed a premium on function rather than form, and the endless backlash has shown that people care more about a car’s form than the Dallara and DeltaWing designers ever anticipated.

In its current visual state, the DeltaWing is a punch line waiting to happen on South Park, The Family Guy, The Soup, The Daily Show, Tosh.0 and every other comedy show that takes its cues from pop culture.

IndyCar’s ‘something crazy’ chassis needs to deliver shock and awe, not shock and laughter. Despite all of its merits as an engineering marvel, until the Ace and Gary-mobile nose is replaced by something better, I can’t take it seriously.

Ben Bowlby designed the car to be an aerodynamic masterpiece – one that needed only 300 horsepower to achieve 230 mph – but with ICONIC calling for at least 500 horsepower and with minimum weights expected to be far above the DeltaWing’s near F1 levels – Bowlby can afford to add some size and weight to the front of his car, thus ditching the phallic profile.

Beyond the visual cues for the 2012 cars, engine mounting is a major consideration that needs to be done properly. Every IndyCar chassis must be designed with the engine as a non-stressed member. The days of Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and others waging a fiscal arms race are over. Forcing new engine suppliers to build dedicated (read: damn expensive) purebred racing engines is a recipe to keep new players away.

If Hyundai wants to come compete with their V6, they should not be forced to hire Cosworth, Ilmor or some other hardcore firm to create a brand new, mega million-dollar design. That’s not to say other manufacturers would be prohibited from going this route, but the ICONIC panel must make it easy for manufacturers to drop their engines into a Dallara/Lola/whatever as a non-stressed unit.

(Yes, all of the ancillaries and electronics would still need to be designed, but that’s a lot more affordable when you don’t have to build a brand-new racing engine.)

Costs caps for the 2012 cars is a highly debatable topic. For a mass production firm like Dallara with its hands in countless series, it can offer an IndyCar at a much cheaper price than anyone else. Lola isn’t far behind, and Swift ranks a distant third.

Swift might have the Formula Nippon market, and might plan to build the 2012 car on their Nippon chassis, but they aren’t geared towards high volume sales each year. Building 10 IndyCars a year would be a dream, and even then, I can’t see a lot of money being put back into the kitty.

While Dallara and Lola can churn out a dozen or more cars each year without it impacting their bottom line, the same can’t be said for a DeltaWing or a BAT.

Both operations are start-ups. They have no other series to offset staff, manufacturing or equipment costs. Each DeltaWing – at least for the first few years – would be built at a loss. Unless its investors forked out a lot more money, they would have a hard time reacting to the need for a major mid-season aero redesign, or whatever development project was required to become competitive.

It’s hard to suggest a maximum price, knowing that unless it was put sky high, the new manufacturers will operate in the red until 2015 or so. Depending on its age, weight and spares package, a current Dallara can go for something in the $400,000 range.

I’d love to see that come down to a sub-$400,000 number, but it would be hard if you take the needs of all the constructors into account. IndyCars are highly unique contraptions to produce – they take a lot of time, money and resources to bring to life, and of all the cost savings I see for 2012, this isn’t one with a lot of fat to carve off the bone.

I’m a fan of a long lifespan for the 2012 chassis – not as long as the Dallara IR07 – provided we’re talking about four to five years. We’ve stared at the same Dallara for what feels like an eternity, but provided the ICONIC panel realizes that different looking chassis will help give the series the appearance of radical change, I don’t expect we’d get tired of looking at three or four different marques through 2016.

The last item to discuss is manufacturing. It’s silly to expect every IndyCar to be manufactured in America. It’s patriotic to call for such a move bit it’s not historically accurate. The first Indy 500 had Mercedes and Fiat in the field. Foreign manufacturers have been a part of IndyCar racing since its inception. Asking Lola and Dallara to spent money to build their cars in the USA is a waste of their money.

If the series is serious about restoring open-wheel’s place in American culture, create business opportunities for vendors and suppliers to make a living from IndyCar racing and eventually, they just might look into building their own chassis.

Don’t penalize the British and Italian constructors for the mistakes the IRL made all by themselves in the 00’s.

Final Recommendation:

• Allow three types of chassis: IRL, Cart/ChampCar and crazy
• All must be manufactured in a dual-purpose model
• All must allow for a non-stressed engine to be used
• Try and reduce chassis costs, but don’t lower the bar too much
• Set a five-year lifespan for the 2012 cars
• Do not require the cars to be built in America

Aerodynamics

But for the annual visit to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, IndyCar drivers are never scared by a lack of downforce. This excess of downforce has plagued the series since the first naturally aspirated cars ran in 1997.

Cars were glued to the track, the engines lacked power, and the wealthier teams spent vast sums trying to actually shed downforce in order to increase their speed.

Things have improved in recent years, if only slightly. Nothing would make me happier than to see the end of the ’we’re flat from the moment we leave the pits until the race is over’ oval contests.

We currently have a litany of big ovals that are pure aerodynamic exercises – the team with the best CFD program wins. I don’t want to see such a large reduction of downforce that drivers are scrambling for grip at 225 mph headed into Turn 1 at Texas, but I would like to see even the best drivers having to lift into the corners.

Unless Firestone starts using bicycle tires on the big ovals, the only way to re-introduce driving skill is to reduce downforce. Smarter engineers than Yours Truly would need to arrive at a target number for chassis manufacturers to hit on the ovals – and it would take a good bit of testing – but bringing an end to the big oval processions is long overdue.

The opposite is needed for short ovals and road courses. The high downforce package teams currently use has worked perfectly. Don’t change it. The ICONIC panel needs to match the relative weight and downforce/drag figures of the current IndyCar to the 2012 car. That’s the starting point.

If chassis manufacturers can make more downforce for the short ovals and road courses, even better. Watching a pack of cars go flat around Kentucky is wholly forgettable. Watching a crazy bastard go flat through Turn 1 at Milwaukee is the stuff of legends. That gets you a SPEED Performance Award and an ESPY.

Beyond reducing downforce on big ovals and turning it up on the short ovals and road courses, this topic doesn’t need a lot of tinkering.

Ban any gimmicks – Hanford devices and the like – and revel in the different aero concepts each chassis manufacturer employs.

Final Recommendation:

• Lower big oval downforce to eliminate drivers being flat out the entire race.
• Let short oval and road course downforce grow to whatever levels can be achieved
• Ban gimmicks

Engines

I love what the ICONIC panel has done to move towards a smaller and more efficient IndyCar engine, but I’m not sure they’ve gone about this shift it in the smartest manner.

Participation from engine producers – both factory and independent – is the single most important aspect of the series’ future. But with a limit of 2.4 liters, I think the ICONIC panel crossed a number of manufacturers off the list in an instant.

Following the non-stressed engine theme, which is just another way of saying ‘we’re encouraging the use of production-based engines’, manufacturers have a reason to come and participate in IndyCars with what they currently make, but asking them to fit into the restrictive 2.4L/six-cylinder box won’t help.

This is an area where the IndyCar Series can actually take the lead on something. The ACO, sanctioning body for Le Mans and the parent rule makers for the ALMS, recently announced that their LMP2 cars (the smaller prototypes) will use production-based engines starting in 2011. This is a trend I expect to become more and more popular. Production-based engines are uncommon in top level auto racing, but the ACO is looking to change that and the ICONIC panel needs to get in early on this move.

As has been written many times, the Indy 500 was once an automotive proving ground, and I see a lot of value in bringing some of that sentiment back for 2012. If I’m an auto manufacturer, I’d rather go prove the speed and efficiency of what I currently have in my inventory, compared to proving the speed and efficiency of what I can make from scratch to fit IndyCar’s rules.

South Korean auto maker Kia, for example, has just dipped its toes into GRAND-AM’s Continental Tire Sports Car Challenge series with a two-car effort. They could have gone big – commissioned a Le Mans racer or an F1 engine – but instead chose to stick with a form of racing that promotes the sportiness of their little Koup sedan. If IndyCar wants any chance of courting someone like Kia to come play in 2012, and there are plenty of companies like Kia out there waiting to be given a reason to look at open-wheel, ICONIC needs to deliver a set of rules that favors Kia modifying their current Koup engine.

It’s worth repeating: If ICONIC comes back with a set of rules that asks engine manufacturers to build the same kind of dedicated racing engines we have today, 2012 will look just like 2010. It will be an all-Honda series.

To be clear, I’m not in favor of a low-tech 2012 IndyCar Series; I don’t want a bunch of Sanford and Son junkyard engines running around Indy, but I do want to see things shift away from IndyCar engines being a product few can afford to lease and even fewer can afford to manufacture.

Make it easy for Ford, Kia, Saab, Nissan or any other marque to add a turbo, a dry-sump oiling system and a few other realistic modifications to come participate with engines that have a direct link back to the showroom floor. Road car engines have come incredibly far over the past decade. Most can be made to deliver the kind of power IndyCar wants for 2012 with the right modifications.

I would expect more frequent rebuilds for these engines – that’s reality – so there would be additional costs involved. We’ve grown accustomed to IndyCar engines never failing, but it doesn’t help a manufacturer to learn much. That’s not to say blown engines would be something new manufacturers would welcome, but if we look at manufacturers using IndyCar racing to improve their road car engine, improvement comes from trial and error. Getting an engine to the point where it purrs all day long with no malfunctions is the goal, and giving engine manufacturers the chance to start along the path towards achieving that goal is vital.

The IndyCar Series would be wise to work with a few different independent (and professional) racing engine builders to develop a network of production engine-to-IndyCar engine solutions to offer potential manufacturers.

Using Kia once again, If Randy Bernard can call and show them that they have a smart, relatively inexpensive path completely mapped out to help them take their Koup engine, get it onto the grid at Indy or Brazil or wherever else with the help of engine builder X without breaking the bank, the word will spread throughout the auto industry.

(Let’s face it: The days of IndyCar writing a set of engine rules, then sitting back and watching as manufacturers line up to join the series are over. I’ll have more in that in this week’s Triple Stint, but in essence, if IndyCar is going to grab the big advertising budgets they need auto manufacturers to spend to promote the series, they will need to go door to door and give them a good reason to sign up. Seeing as how most auto manufacturers do not have their own dedicated racing engine departments, providing potential 2012 manufacturers with a checklist – a menu of sorts -- of whom to call, what would be needed for their engine and what it might cost to produce their first IndyCar-spec motor is a no-brainer.)

A price cap must be set for leases and purchases. Honda is trying to come in at under $500,000 for leasing two engines. I’d love to see that edged closer to $400,000. I’d like to see engine sales – a complete motor, minus electronics and radiators/coolers, at $200,000 or less.

I don’t foresee engine leases disappearing, but engine sales must be encouraged. It is better for teams to own an asset than to sink money into a lease year after year.

The Global Racing Engine (GRE) I recently wrote about is a perfect platform for budget racing – something where a company like Ford can produce a single engine capable of racing from Baja to Indy –and it fits nicely as a more expensive, but multi-purpose and commercially viable powerplant to sell. Some manufacturers contemplating GREs have even targeted a sale price of well under $100,000.

If the IndyCar Series has a possible new engine supplier who expresses an interest in the big series, Lights and maybe sportscars, push them towards a GRE. If they are just interested in IndyCar racing, help them turn their preferred production motor into something that’s ready to race.

The final aspect of the 2012 engine I’m imploring the ICONIC panel to consider comes in the form of encouraging independent engine builders to compete in the series.

In the 1980s – something I call the ‘Cosworth Era’, the name on an engine’s cam cover mattered very little. Almost everyone used Cosworth’s venerable turbocharged V8, the DFX. Most DFXs were built privately by the teams or their associates – VDS, Galles, Penske, Patrick, Shierson, Judd, Chaparral, and also by Cosworth.

Like the GRE, the DFX was bought at a reasonable price, had a solid commercial value on the used engine market, and could be rebuilt for an affordable sum. Thinking back to the heroes of the 1980s – Mario and Michael, Mears, the Unsers, Fittipaldi, Sneva, Sullivan and so many more – THEY were the stars. What powered them to Victory Circle was a tool – an appliance – that allowed them to wage amazing battles at a discounted rate.

Although the drivers weren’t of the same caliber, the first generation of IRL cars had the same thing -- the ‘Oldsmobile Era’. NAC, Brayton, Speedway, Ilmor, Menard, Blueprint and a few others all built motors from the kits sold by GM. Costs were in the $75,000 range and it was rare when one builder had more than 20 horsepower more than the others. It was a thriving industry and a lot of people throughout the country made a living from building and tuning IndyCar engines.

We need the ICONIC panel to do everything possible to get major manufacturers back in the IndyCar Series, but we also need them to tweak the engine rules to allow a wider range of engines – up to 3.2 liters – so that more production engines can fit in the series without wholesale changes. With a mix of factory and independent engine solutions, a good balance of competition can be offered. We won’t get stuck in an all-factory open-wheel series again.

Most production six-cylinder engines are bigger than 2.4 liters, and while those 2.8, 3.0 and 3.2L motors can be de-stroked to fit the current 2.4L maximum, I just don’t see the reason why they should have to. Because most production 6’s are bigger than 2.4L, IndyCar needs to adapt to the industry, rather than making potential engine partners adapt to a spec found nowhere else but in IndyCar.

Increasing engine capacity also helps anyone who chooses to run a four-cylinder engine, giving them options to build bigger, less stressed engines.

If we step back to the ‘Cosworth Era’ for a moment, it’s worth noting that Cosworth offers two different ‘tuner’ engines that are perfect for the 2012 IndyCar. You can buy an almost ready Subaru WRX STI four-cylinder boxer turbo engine or a Mitsubishi Evo inline-four for somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000, and with some additional parts, the build labor and the dyno time added on, you can have yourself 750 ethanol-powered ponies sitting in a crate on your doorstep for something in the region of $40,000.

Depending on whether the ICONIC panel allows ground effect tunnels or if they go with a flat bottom (the boxer engine wouldn’t work well with tunnels), both units could be the ultimate inexpensive ‘plug-n-play’ IndyCar engine. Based on the sizing of the turbo and which cams are used, Cosworth’s STI and Evo engines can make as little as 400 horsepower – perfect for Indy Lights.

Like the GRE, when the time comes for big boy IndyCar power, the Subie can hit 850 horsepower in qualifying trim, and the Evo motor can deliver well over 1000 horsepower for short bursts.

Cosworth’s long-block tuner engines are just one example of how the series can take back control of their motors and open up revenue streams for small businesses throughout the country. There are at least a dozen STI engine specialists throughout the country – same with the Evo, with Toyotas, with Fords, etc.

Smaller teams will likely opt for independent engines as they save money and grow their businesses. Bigger teams will go for the pro motors. Independent engines will win every now and then, but the big teams will still dominate. Little will change, but at least the smaller teams won’t teeter on bankruptcy paying for pro motors while finishing at the back of the grid. Why not save a lot of money while earning the same results? Why not put those savings toward hiring better drivers and engineers?

It also helps to seed and rebuild the dozens and dozens of small businesses who used to make a living off supporting IndyCar teams.

Like the DeltaWing as a wildcard chassis, the ICONIC panel also needs to allow the use of crazy engines. That’s not to say a long set of rules defining every type of steam, turbine, diesel, rotary or electro-peanut butter-powered motor is needed, but a clause must be included that opens the doors to evaluate innovation.

We don’t know what the next great engine will be, but we do know that if we write a set of rules that prevents its use, IndyCar racing will lag behind the times yet again.

On the topic of engine components, nothing, and I do mean NOTHING about the 2012 engine should have a mandated supplier. If the series wants to limit chassis manufacturers to just a handful, I’m fine with that. But when it comes to engines, everything from spark plugs to oil filters must be open.

(One of the major losses of associate sponsorships and contingency funding has come from the use of a single-supplier engine. IndyCars used to carry a ton of smaller stickers – all that paid some sort of money or offered a lot of free, budget-saving components. By allowing different air filters, hose clamps, pistons, fuel injectors, etc, teams can supplement their budgets through the automotive aftermarket industry for the first time in a long while. One current team owner said he’d expect to bring in about $300,000 per year if he was permitted to use non-spec parts and pieces throughout the engine bay.)

Like the GRE, the ICONIC panel needs to work with big and small engine producers to come to sensible minimum and maximum component weights and dimensions. A strict list of allowed construction materials is a smart move, and will keep production costs down. Inevitably, someone will outspend Malaysia’s GDP to produce the world’s first carbon fiber crankshaft unless they are forbidden to do so.

The ICONIC panel has been tasked with creating a car that is more efficient and relevant, but the nature of the engine architecture they have come up with defies that goal. To make a turbocharged four-cylinder engine produce in excess of 500 horsepower, it needs fuel. Embarrassing amounts of fuel. Like, ‘makes Honda’s current 3.4L V8 look like a Prius engine’ kind of bad mileage.

A turbo V6 will get better fuel consumption, but not by much. The fact is that asking a small displacement engine to make big power takes a turbo, a lot of revs and a lot of fuel. Seeing as how much of the global auto industry is moving towards small displacement, fuel sipping engines, there’s a big disconnect between the 2012 IndyCar and the world we live in.

Allowing alternative fuels will help – at least from a promotional standpoint – but with the lower caloric value of most bio fuels, it takes more E85, for example, to go the same distance as gasoline. Allowing direct injection (DI), a style of fuel delivery to the combustion chamber that averages about 7% more efficiency than traditional fuel injection is a nice toy, but DI isn’t widely used in street cars, and it is cost-prohibitive for all but the biggest manufacturers to develop just for the race track.

One manufacturer I spoke with who looked into having a DI system designed and manufactured for their current four-cylinder turbo racing engine was quoted almost $500,000. And that was just to go from CAD drawings to machining live parts. The costs of dyno testing, engine mapping and track testing moved the total estimate closer to $1 million. Because DI isn’t readily available, it needs to be disallowed until the majority of the engine providers demand its use. Until then, it’s a major advantage that only the upper crust can afford.

The smartest thing for the series to do would be to revise their approach to promoting the efficiency of the 2012 engines. Bio fuels are a good thing, and they certainly tick the ‘Green racing’ box, but three miles-per-gallon is hardly a figure that will have anyone at the Department of Energy singing IndyCar’s praise.

I say ditch the engine efficiency pitch, sell the heck out of the Green angle and hope the average media outlet doesn’t look too closely under the hood on this topic.

One last item to discuss is the use of independent engines as a marketing tool. This might seem like a bit of stretch, but think about the new fans that would follow the series if the hundreds of thousands of Nissan enthusiasts – those who spend time every day on the Nissan forums talking about their S13s and S14s – saw that someone was entering an IndyCar with a 2.4L inline-4 S13 turbo engine? Those make well over 500 horsepower without breaking a sweat and they are used every weekend in time attacks, drifting competitions and also in road racing.

Tapping into the enthusiast car culture is a major possibility for the IndyCar Series – import cars have massive followings in the United States – and those pockets of brand loyal fans could have their first real reason to tune into the Indy 500 (or the entire championship) to follow how the S13-engined IndyCar is doing.

Apply that thinking to VW, the aforementioned Subarus and Evos, Scions, BMWs and every other sporty car that people love. An underdog team with an underdog engine is still a huge draw for the millions of car nuts who have never looked at IndyCar racing with interest.

(Subaru entered F1 back in 1990 with one of the worst teams on the grid, Coloni. Their flat-12 engine, made by the undistinguished Motori Moderni outfit, wasn’t worth the metal it was built from. It failed to qualify for every race it entered, but amongst the modern Subaru fans, it is still a legendary effort. The thought of Subaru trying to compete in F1 twenty years ago still captivates the loyal fans of the Japanese marque, even though the Coloni-Subaru partnership was a total disaster. Imagine what kind of reaction a 2012 effort from a Dallara-STI/Evo/S13/whatever tuner engine could generate.)

It’s one thing to try and convert NASCAR or NFL fans to watch open-wheel racing. That’s a hard sell. Structuring the engine and chassis rules to make it easier to go after the folks who flock to the forums could be the easiest sell Bernard can make.

Final Recommendation:

• Increase the displacement to allow more six-cylinders engines to participate without a lot of work to de-stroke them/allow the four-cylinder engines to go bigger to help with reliability
• Allow purebred racing engines but slant the rules to clearly favor production-based motors
• Provide a list of recommended production-to-IndyCar-spec engine builders and the expected costs of the parts and development for a new auto manufacturer to join the series. Usher them along during every step of the process
• Encourage the use of Global Racing Engines for new manufacturers who want to do more than just IndyCar racing
• Engines must be non-stressed members
• Heavily encourage independent engine producers to bring inexpensive solutions to the series. The more people that make a living off supporting the series, the more B2B opportunities and the more advocates you have from employees and car forums
• Do not allow single-source suppliers for engine components
• Allow bio fuels, but disallow direct injection for now
• Don’t try to promote engine efficiency when the 2012 engine spec is such a fuelish monster
• Allow alternate engines and future technologies to be evaluated and voted on for use in a case by case basis through a ‘new technology’ clause

Gearbox and Associated Components

With the exception of the MEGA-LINE paddle shifting system, the functions of the current IndyCar transmissions aren’t much different than what has been used for the past 20 years. It has a reasonable amount of forward gears, it’s compact, it has good weight distribution properties and it rarely fails.

Knowing all of that, I can see no reason to make any changes for 2012. The continuously variable transmission (CVT) and automatic gearboxes have been used in other forms of motorsport, but following the ‘Cosworth Era’ trend once again, fans don’t buy tickets to watch gearboxes. They come out to see great drivers go fast in interesting cars, but the transmission is one area I think would be a waste for the ICONIC panel to open up for development.

Unlike engines, auto manufacturers don’t get involved in motorsport to develop or promote their production gearboxes. Invite Xtrac, Ricardo, Hewland or any of the other major racing ‘box manufacturers to build a unit to a precise cost and function specification.

Like the ‘new technology’ engine clause, the same is needed for transmissions. If someone comes up with a crazy new idea, or if a manufacturer has a big breakthrough, evaluate its merits, decide if it helps the series and the teams, and rule accordingly. Until then, keep IndyCar gearboxes similar, reliable and cost-effective.

One area I’m probably thinking outside of ICONIC’s box is the continued use of paddle shifting systems. When John Barnard first introduced it with the 1989 Ferrari F1 car, it was revolutionary. Today, it’s little more than ordinary. But it’s only ordinary in the world of motorsport. True, the system is finding its way into more road cars, but the majority of what people drive every day comes with either a manual or an automatic transmission. The paddle-shift frenzy many predicted would dominate road cars has yet to happen, and I doubt it ever will.

With all of that said, its merits are well-known. It greatly reduces costly engine over revs. It reduces transmission wear and major malfunctions. But it has also taken a lot of unpredictability out of auto racing.

Prior to Barnard’s invention, engines rarely blew due to over revs. It was usually caused by an engine being over stressed or from an internal component failure. Gearbox malfunctions – from broken gears to complete failures – did seem to happen more often, but it wasn’t a huge epidemic that Barnard cured.

Even with paddle shifting, failures still occur. Dario Franchitti’s gearbox died at the most recent IndyCar round. A number of cars dropped out two weeks ago at the 24 Hours of Le Mans with gearbox failure (one paddle shifting prototype lost drive on the first lap!), and it continues to happen in F1.

If we can agree that most IndyCar drivers are good enough to prevent their engines from self-ventilating by properly matching revs when downshifting, and that they will take care of their dog rings and gears by not shifting like Mike Tyson throwing a punch, maybe it’s time to get rid of a driver aid that isn’t particularly relevant to most auto manufacturers.

I like the idea of a driver pressuring the person they're chasing to make a mistake and miss a gear. I like the idea of a driver locking their rear wheels under braking because they didn’t row through the gears perfectly, and then watching the car behind make a daring last-second pass. Most of all, I like the idea of human perfection or human error being allowed back into one aspect of IndyCar racing that has only recently become automated.

Watch an episode of National Geographic where lions are hunting gazelles, and life or death usually comes as a result of who makes the first mistake during pursuit. The gazelle trips and is caught, or the lion stumbles and the gazelle gets away. With MEGA-LINE systems attached, the lion and gazelle would never trip, would never stumble, and you’d eventually fall asleep as the chase went on for hours and hours.

If the automotive world hasn’t deemed Barnard’s invention as a must-have, and if drivers were capable of making it to the finish for decades prior to its arrival, I think the ICONIC panel should put paddle shifting back in the box as a fun but unnecessary electronic aid.

Clutches, on the other hand, have continued to get smaller and lighter over the years as carbon discs have become the norm. They are very expensive, but if treated properly, they rarely fail. As clutches are not made specifically for IndyCar racing, it would be hard to spec a unit and ask for a particular price point to be delivered by AP and the other vendors.

I’d like to see the ICONIC panel work with the teams to pick a current clutch – one that can easily handle the 750 horsepower maximum they’re looking for, and the extra heat that turbos will generate, and nominate a few models from the most widely used manufacturers. The only focus here should be to keep super light or super trick clutches from being used.

Pankl has cornered the market on drive shafts, and while I don’t see a need to nominate them as the sole supplier, I would expect most teams to gravitate towards their product. Set a minimum weight, maximum price and limit exotic materials here, and then leave the rest alone. If someone can beat Pankl at their game, good for them.

Final Recommendation:

• Stick with the current style of bespoke racing transmissions
• Remove the MEGA-LINE system
• Pick a smart and readily available clutch
• Maintain the current driveshaft style

Electronics

For the past 20 years, this has been a domain that belonged to specialized IndyCar suppliers. Pi Research (now Cosworth Electronics), and more recently, EFI and Motec, have provided the majority of electronics, except for the engines. The data systems, the dashes, the telemetry systems, tire monitoring systems, sensors, controls, software, wiring and cables have all come from these small vendors.

Depending on how aggressive the data system package is put together -- how many goodies and options that are chosen – it’s easy to spend more than $250,000 per car.

Prices can be reduced and it would be easy to tab the current vendors to offer solutions for the 2012 car, which I fully recommend the ICONIC panel to do.

But of all the areas of potential technological and financial growth in the 2012 IndyCar Series, I think that electronics is the one untapped area that needs to be developed.

Pi came into existence before the internet came to Al Gore in a dream. EFI was little more than a Pi imitator on the IndyCar scene, and Motec was started as the anti-Pi – a small, affordable option that gave real people a chance to acquire data systems.

Bosch was involved with GM in the IRL, and Pectel also had a place in the series, but most of these providers work in a small pool – one that is disconnected from Silicon Valley or any of the high-tech industries that are intertwined with American culture.

From sensors to wires to software, the 2012 IndyCar Series is much better placed to present itself as a viable, vibrant proving ground for high-tech companies to test their products and to wage battles with their competitors.

Everything from wireless technology to innovations in LCD screens should have a home in IndyCar racing. Cutting-edge processors, miniaturized temperature, displacement and flow sensors, and lightweight wires are ripe for use and promotion in the 2012 IndyCars.

Is it too crazy to imagine a company like Apple, Samsung or HTC getting involved as a sponsor and equipment provider to deliver touch screen dash technology – one that has a few dedicated IndyCar apps on it – where a driver taps the fuel prediction icon with his or her finger to have it open up to show their fuel mileage or how many laps they have left until the next pit stop?

The world today seems to live by the cell phone – bridge the worlds of mobile applications and mobile computing with the 2012 IndyCar cockpit – and the commercial possibilities are endless. Who says an IndyCar’s data dash must be super small? Write a set of rules that calls for the dash’s data screen to be larger, and you give Apple engineers the opportunity to collaborate with a Pi or a Motec to deliver the first 230 mph iPad. Call it the iNDYPad.

OK, skip the iNDYPad name part, but as mobile computing is starting to make its way into our automobiles and as Wi-Fi is making its way onto commercial airplanes, the IndyCar Series is perfectly placed to offer companies a leadership role in developing and marketing their related products.

But like the potential engine manufacturers out there, it will take a lot of trips by Bernard to the various technology hubs throughout the country to connect the dots and get them involved. Because the door has been shut for so long, the concept of using open-wheel racing in North America as a mobile laboratory has simply been forgotten my most companies.

If Bernard pitches the series as sexy, green and high-tech, he could open a revenue stream that is large and almost limitless.

Final Recommendation:

• Solicit the familiar racing data vendors to supply their current solutions, but at a better price. Electronics should cost at most a quarter of what the chassis runs, not half as we have now
• Go after the high-tech world to use the IndyCar Series as a major test bed and promotional tool

Suspension

This is another area that has no road car relevance and should remain largely unchanged from what we have in use today.

Allow a-arms, pushrod or pullrods, allow torsion bars or dampers, and allow anti-roll bars and third spring arrangements. This is everything we have now, with exception of torsion bars and proper third springs. Torsion bars are popular in other forms of the sport, so there’s nothing revolutionary there. The same goes for third springs.

Dampers are open, but a reasonable cost per shock should be implemented. A maximum of two shocks and one third spring/damper is allowed front and rear. Again, this is status quo.

Disallow silly items like Cambridge inerters and other exotic goodies that cost a fortune and don’t enhance the show.

Final Recommendation:

• Stay conventional
• Allow third springs and torsion bars. Keep the rest unchanged

Brakes

Carbon brakes are cool, but they aren’t relevant. Go back to steel, save the teams money, increase braking distances, and be done with it. If the ICONIC panel goes away from paddle shifting and carbon discs, the sport gets better.

Final Recommendation:

• Go to steel brakes for every round

Tires

The size and construction method of what Firestone provides today is the standard for IndyCar racing. Goodyear tried to compete with Firestone, going so far as to produce a shorter tire one year, but the grip and durability Firestone offered couldn’t be matched. Goodyear was soon gone.

My only suggestion for the ICONIC panel is to leave this open for other manufacturers to join. Michelin loves high-tech racing, and might find value in the 2012 IndyCar Series. A number of Asian tire companies have joined the ALMS in the past few years because of the open competition, and they too could find the next IndyCars to be a perfect place to showcase their products.

If it translates into dollars for the series, the teams and meaningful promotion of IndyCar racing, it’s worth keeping the door open.

Final Recommendation:

• Don’t choose a sole supplier

Fuels

Corn-based ethanol, cellulosic-based ethanol, Isobutanol, gasoline, diesel and every other form of fuel should be allowed. Alternative fuel use hasn’t attracted much corporate involvement in auto racing to date, but it’s a carrot worth dangling.

Final Recommendation:

• Unless we’re talking about a new kind of fuel that is toxic or depletes massive amounts of natural resources to be produced, do not limit the types of fuels allowed in 2012 and beyond

Safety

I think the IndyCar safety board has done a phenomenal job with the current Dallara. The only major area I’d like to see revised – and this problem isn’t specific to IndyCars – is the method by which the driver’s protective head restraint is attached to the car.

The current system essentially blocks the driver from getting out – just as we witnessed with Simona De Silvestro’s fire at Texas – and in an emergency, any safety system that can potentially trap a driver in the cockpit needs a serious re-think.

What we have now it somewhat akin to a lock and key system, where the head surround drops into grooves in the chassis, where it is then clipped into place with removable pins. It prevent the driver’s shoulders from coming up and out unless the pins are pulled and the surround is moved forward and up to come out of the grooves.

Whether the head surround is replaced with a ruggedized, inflatable bladder that can be quickly deflated, or the series alters the cockpit shape to allow a two-part head surround to be pushed back into recesses on both the sides of the cockpit, or it is hinged on both sides of the cockpit and allowed to swing upwards and out of the way – kind of like saloon doors – it’s hard to see the present system go forward.

It’s just fine when a driver is in no rush to extricate themselves from a wreck. But that isn’t a worst case scenario. As De Silvestro reminded us, the current head surround is insufficient when rapid extraction is called for.

Final Recommendation:

• The head surround is meant to provide lateral protection, only. Redesign the head surround so it no longer locks a driver into the cockpit

Chassis and Engine Development

To tweak or not to tweak--that is the question.

I came into the sport and worked for most of my career during a time when teams were allowed to do pretty much whatever they wanted to with their cars. The Super Vee team I worked with showed up at Phoenix with a normal-sized right front wing and a baby left front wing used to trim downforce. A Sports 2000 team I worked with completely re-did the engine mounting system, providing a huge increase in stiffness. An Atlantic team I worked with developed a 7/8th body for the Ralt RT-40.

The common denominator here is that all of the developments mentioned above came from the shop floor – ideas the crew came up with – and were built in a short amount of time and without wasting a ton of money. Computers and virtual testing were not involved in the process. It was human ingenuity run amok. Sometimes it worked and sometime it didn’t. (The Super Vee wing concept was a huge FAIL, BTW.)

The spirit of shop floor innovation has been an unfortunate casualty since the IRL went spec engine/chassis/tire, and I would love to see it return. But times have changed. Tim Cindric won’t let Helio Castroneves’ car out of the shop to try a new front wing end plate unless it has first seen a few days of CFD, if not a day or two of wind tunnel testing.

The days of ’hey, I’ve got an idea. I’ll bolt it onto the car and let’s go run it around Indy died with the bias-ply tire and women being panned from the pits.

Ideas are expensive to prototype and develop. Innovation costs money. As long as teams are struggling to make ends meet, and as much as it hurts to say this, I think open development by the teams on 2012 chassis and aerodynamics is something that must remain under wraps.

In F1, where road car manufacturers actually compete with chassis and engines that carry their names, it makes sense to allow total vehicle development. In IndyCars, where only the engine is something that has ties to the auto industry, allowing teams to spend precious dollars on their own parts to make Dallaras, Lolas, Swifts and DeltaWings go faster is a total waste. It’s inside baseball.

If the economy rebounds and spending freely on custom end plates, mirrors, wings and other chassis components becomes easy to absorb, revisit the ban. Until then, allow moderate engine development – a set number of upgrades at a fixed cost per year – and leave the rest to the chassis manufacturers to develop.

Engine specifications need to be frozen just prior to the first race each year, with two to three upgrades permitted throughout the season. Price caps need to be set on those upgrades – something in the $15,000 range – and they are only allowed if deemed necessary by the series. In short, a manufacturer with an obvious power advantage would be unlikely to get their full ration of upgrades until it was shown that it was needed to keep pace with their rivals. A manufacturer who comes up lacking in the power or torque department would have little resistance to push an upgrade through. If most of the engines are close on power, few, if any upgrades would be allowed.

Upgrades would be submitted to the series for review, with their expected performance gains proven via simulation or real world testing. An engine that was short 20 horsepower would not be allowed 50 horsepower of upgrades, for example. It would be allowed somewhere in the region of 10 to 15.

Those upgrades could come in the form of extra revs or more boost – both are perfect tools for leaps of anything under 50 horsepower without jeopardizing reliability, provided an engine isn’t already at the breaking point. For bigger horsepower gains, upgraded cams, turbos, pistons, exhausts and other hard bits are required.

Rather than penalize an engine’s superiority with smaller air restrictors or additional chassis ballast, the deficient engines would have a few shots to claw their way back each season. Anyone sand bagging would be dealt with severely. Engine performance data – provided through the on-board data systems and GPS – would be evaluated after every race. That’s standard practice for most series who deal with a wide array of engines and chassis.

Small adjustments can be made at each round to maintain some semblance of control, but I beg the ICONIC panel to avoid performance balancing for the 2012 car.

This isn’t the youth soccer league where scores aren’t kept, winners aren’t declared and every kid goes home with a trophy. There are winners and losers in professional sports. Winners shouldn’t be penalized and losers shouldn’t receive a free pass to match the winners.

With the upgrade model above, I’m all for helping the losers to improve – I call it the ‘fighting chance’ clause. Give them a fighting chance, but don’t give them knockout power. Bring them closer to the winners so they don’t get demotivated and leave, but do not, under any circumstances, do all of their development work for them through performance balancing.

Performance balancing leads to laziness. It’s easier (and much cheaper) to complain about one’s deficiencies and let a sanctioning body cure those ills through rule changes than to spend time and money to outsmart and out engineer the competition. Performance balancing, in effect, puts development in the hand of the series, and that’s not where it belongs.

It gets tricky when trying to give independent engine builders a fighting chance. An Evo engine, built for a fraction of Honda’s badass purebred motor, shouldn’t even come close on the track, but it can actually match whatever level of power the boys at HPD come up with.

So why wouldn’t everyone avoid the Honda, go with Evo engines at 1/5th the price and call it a day? It makes sense if you only look at horsepower figures, but there are inherent drawbacks to choosing an independent builder over a factory program.

What kind of fuel consumption does the Evo have compared to the Honda? What about throttle response, torque and power curves, technical support, durability, and what kind of spares are available at the track?

I’m not concerned about how an independent engine stacks up against a pro motor on the dyno. Races are won or lost with more than grunt, and for that factor alone, there’s little concern on the ‘fighting chance’ front when it comes to independent builders. The areas they need to improve can’t be granted through the rules; it can only come with time, experience and investing in their respective companies.

For the chassis manufacturers, I support the same ‘fighting chance’ clause, provided they can prove their deficiencies are real and that an upgrade is required to get closer to the front.

CART went through some ugly chassis wars in the mid to late 1990s, with Reynard reigning supreme. Lola went from being the mainstay to an afterthought as Reynard reached a little bit higher year after year. Lola held firm to its conventional ways, lost touch, and lost their market share. Swift came in with fresh ideas, impressed, but soon followed Lola into the wilderness. Eagle entered the series with a chassis suffering from mid-life crisis, and its final replacement looked nuts but went like a bat out of breath.

Should CART have given the Reynard teams extra ballast to level the playing field? Swift skipped town before long, the Eagle died and Lola was dead in the water until Ben Bowlby penned what became THE dominant ChampCar chassis. Reynard ran everyone out of the series, which made them proud, but in retrospect, it wasn’t good for the series.

When it comes to the IndyCar Series helping a chassis manufacturer to find a half-second, the process is much harder than turning up the boost by one PSI.

Chassis deficiencies are almost always aerodynamic – a lack of downforce at one end of the car or too much drag – and those solutions can only come from the manufacturer. That requires CFD, wind tunnel work and track testing. These fixes start out in the low six-figures and can get more expense in a hurry. It places a premium on getting the aero correct from the start.

But as we saw with Lola, Swift and Eagle, that rarely happens when multiple chassis compete in the same series. Someone sets the tone and the rest struggle to match it. If we refer back to the low profit margins they have today, it means that most of the 2012 chassis manufacturers can only afford one misstep – one upgrade each year – before teams lose faith and look to switch to the dominant chassis.

This is yet another area where rules and legislation can’t be used to prevent nature from taking its course. It’s hard to cap a price on what chassis manufacturers can spend to fix their cars, but it is not hard to freeze chassis development and to evaluate the types of fixes a manufacturer requests. It’s another case by case process. Like engine upgrades, the same strict ‘only if you can prove you really need it’ philosophy should be used.

It is in the interest of the series and the owners to not let one chassis dominate – but that’s what has led to us having a field filled with Dallaras. GForce proposed an update that would have put it well clear of the Dallara, but the series disallowed it, despite agreeing it was completely legal. The argument was that it would force all of the Dallara owners to buy GForces to remain competitive.

So what should we do for the 2012 chassis? I’d ask the ICONIC panel to make 2012 a year of relatively open development, albeit one where spending was closely monitored, to bring all of the chassis into some semblance of similar performance. Not performance balancing, mind you, but a year of tweaks to get everyone on the same playing field. There will be differences; some cars will be a few tenths faster than others, but a benchmark is needed to keep the chassis builders safe from extinction.

Once the cars are close – and the benchmarking would need to be done with the same model of engine in each car – freeze the chassis for 2013 and let the teams and drivers work away to find the little suspension, aero and setup improvements that come with time. If one (or more) chassis still come up short, use the ‘fighting chance’ clause to shorten the gap.

Final Recommendation:

• Do not open chassis development up for the teams
• Use the ‘fighting chance’ clause to help engine and chassis manufacturers, but do so sparingly
• Use 2012 to benchmark the different chassis and then freeze development for 2013

Administration

With all due apologies to the current IndyCar technical staff, the series is completely unprepared to properly administer and police a series filled with high-tech turbo cars. I’ve written about it. Robin Miller has written about it, and the ICONIC panel knows it’s a major problem area.

But there’s a slight problem with arriving at a solution. The George family has given Randy Bernard zero latitude with budgets; he doesn’t have Tony George’s old Platinum Visa to go out and hire an all-new tech staff. Another solution might be for the entrants to pay into a pool to hire more astute technical staff, but that’s kind of like asking the foxes to pay for security at the chicken coop.

Unless Bernard is given that budget to hire a new tech staff, the best solution I can come up with is to reach out to the American Le Mans Series and strike a deal for support from their technical arm, IMSA. The two series race together on multiple occasions each year, and I’m guessing a barter of some sorts could be arranged. They’ve already joined forces on some B2B deals – administrative efficiencies – so it isn’t a totally new concept for them to combine resources.

IMSA has policed a series filled with just the type of different cars, engines, electronics and fuels that the IndyCar Series is looking to embrace for the first time. In short, IndyCar is following a path the ALMS has blazed for a decade. While it hasn’t always been perfectly balanced (few open tech series are), IMSA is plenty experienced with how to make Isobutanol-powered turbo fours play nicely with E85-powered naturally aspirated V8s.

They know how to keep a twin-turbo 3.2L V8 and a 5.5L V10 close together, and how to keep the factory teams from breaching the rules. They know exotic fuels, electronic driver aids, electronic monitoring systems and just about everything else the IndyCar Series will have to get up to speed on.

My advice to the ICONIC panel is to save themselves the short-term learning curve by working with IMSA in 2012 and 2013. Why reinvent the wheel? Be smart and bring in experts to help you learn the ropes. When the dollars are there, fill out your own tech staffing requirements.

Final Recommendation:

• Upgrade IndyCar’s tech staff by working with IMSA in 2012 and 2013
• Hire a dedicated tech staff once the knowledge transfer has taken place

Promotions

At their core value, engine manufacturers are of more use to the IndyCar Series for their advertising budgets than for the engines they provide to the teams. CART, in its heyday in the 1990s, grew to such massive popularity because of the widespread print, television and emerging internet advertising campaigns paid for by the engine manufacturers. You’d see banners or cardboard cutout in restaurants, bars, gas stations and plenty of other places, and this happened in towns throughout the country, not just where IndyCar races were held.

The racing was incredible – there’s no mistaking that – but as we still see today in a variety of racing series, great racing doesn’t necessarily translate into massive popularity or huge ticket sales.

CART delivered millions of fans to the track and in front of the TV because Honda, Ford, Toyota, Mercedes, Chevrolet and others spent vast sums to attract people to open-wheel racing. The off-track investment, at times, matched or exceeded what was being spent on the engine programs and it showed.

It’s not a mistake that CART’s popularity diminished as the auto manufacturers pulled out. The diehard fans always follow their favorite sport, but it was the casual fan that was lost. They now follow NASCAR or stick-and-ball sports, I imagine.

Randy Bernard can’t come right out and say “I just want you for your advertising dollars,” but that’s the real motivation behind getting everyone from Daihatsu to Dodge to join the series. IZOD has gone overboard on helping to promote IndyCar racing, but with a miniscule internal budget of his own to promote the series, Bernard knows the only means to reach the casual fan is through the marketing budgets that engine manufacturers can bring to bear.

The ICONIC panel would be wise to establish some sort of minimum promotions clause for 2012 – one that details the ranges of advertising expected from factory participants.
It’s hard to mandate a set budget for each manufacturer – it would probably scare many of them away – but there must be some form of agreement between the series and the manufacturers that outlines what kind of print/TV/web advertising is required to properly activate their participation.

Each manufacturer would have differing levels of ad dollars to spend – some can afford national TV campaigns while other might only be able to do regional TV promotions – but with a handful of manufacturers promoting their open-wheel involvement throughout the country, it gives the impression of a big campaign -- a united front.

As long as the series clearly states to potential engine manufacturers that a high level of promotional efforts must compliment their participation in the series, IndyCar racing might become popular again.

Final Recommendation:

• Make promotions an upfront expectation from engine manufacturers

Personnel

It’s not easy to say this as a former IndyCar team member, but if the series wants to help teams to reduce their budgets, a cap on the maximum number of employees must be implemented. This limit would apply to every type of employee – permanent, part-time, contractors, temps, etc.

It would be up to the teams to consult and lobby with the series on what the maximum number of employees would be, but the process is rather straight forward. The number of mechanics needed to maintain an IndyCar hasn’t changed much over the years, but the volume of engineers and managers has grown like wild fire.

With the huge operations like Penske, Ganassi and Andretti have, multiple layers of management have been put in place to coordinate and streamline every function. The days of one race engineer and one data engineer is also a thing of the past. With IndyCar timing stands packed with personnel – race engineers, data engineers, race strategists, fuel strategists and more, the car itself starts to become the cheap part of the equation. And these are just the people we see at the track.

I documented in a Triple Stint earlier this year that with the restrictive testing policy the series has in place, most teams have shifted their on-track testing budgets to off-track testing – simulations, CFD, wind tunnel visits, and so on. All of those items, with the exception of wind tunnel tests, require hiring highly expensive full-time specialists who spend countless hours searching for fractions of a second.

As one team owner at the sharp end of the grid recently shared, if the series restricted the use of virtual testing, he’d save more than $500,000 dollar per year by closing those engineering positions. Granted, Team 3G wouldn’t leapfrog past Team Penske if everyone had to make that engineering (and performance) sacrifice, but freeing up a half-million dollars (on the high end) to somewhere in the $200,000 range for the smaller teams makes too much sense not to mandate.

Again, I’m not a big fan of reducing the IndyCar workforce, but we’re not talking about taking the wrench out of a mechanic’s hand. Racing engineers area a valuable commodity – something that NASCAR, NHRA and sportscar teams are always looking for.

There are ways to cheat, of course, but some of this has to be done on the honor system. It’s also something that polices itself; everybody in IndyCar knows everybody else. It’s incredibly hard for someone to go to work for a team, even in secret, without it getting out. Agree on X number of mechanics and crew members, X number of support staff, X number of managers, X number of engineers and do occasional audits, if necessary.

Lord help the team that hires an extra CFD engineer and tries to pass the guy off as a gardener…

IndyCar racing has added on layers of brainpower that undoubtedly make the cars go faster, but the influx of those engineers first started when open-wheel was flush with cash. Labor costs swelled and absorbing those salaries wasn’t an issue in the pre-2008 financial meltdown. But as IndyCar looks to the future, they need to get with the times and help the teams to help themselves. The back office positions can’t be sustained, they aren’t critical to the series’ health, and they only serve to drain precious dollars from a cash-strapped form of motorsport.

We know from history that teams will not give up a performance advantage like simulation engineers unless they are forced to do so. Think of this as IndyCar’s version of an intervention. It’s what’s best for the teams, which in turn makes the series healthier, and anyone who is made redundant will find work elsewhere.

Final Recommendation:

• Cap the total number of employees per entry, specifically focused on eliminating expensive extra layers of management and back office engineers

THE END!

The opinions reflected herein are solely those of the above commentator and are not necessarily those of SPEEDtv.com, SPEED, FOX, or NewsCorp.