The 2002 View of IRL Engines

[JoeBob]

I put this in another thread, but I thought it might deserve its own. Here's the 2002 release on the IRL's 2003-2005 engine program. Their description of the program, and the realities are an interesting comparison.

http://www.indyracing.com/news/story.php?story_id=355

The Program is designed to ensure the availability of competitive equipment, and thereby prevent one or two teams from having equipment which is unavailable to the other competitors.

Three Year Average Annual Gross Cost: $1,065,000

(They actually do the math showing how that will be the maximum cost in 2005. Today, they're saying that hitting that number in 2007 would be a 50% reduction from 2005!)

And then it gets wrapped up with this

The 2003 Racing Season will reflect the continued growth of the Indy Racing League as it welcomes to the "stable" of engine manufacturers Toyota and Honda, two of the largest companies in the World, each with extensive racing experience, to complement Chevrolet and its rich racing heritage. Toyota and Honda have embraced the Indy Racing League philosophies of equipment availability, cost control and economic value, and will compete with Chevrolet on the race track under the Indy Racing League rules of competition. The competition will be fierce, but fair, and the competition among these three high caliber, committed competitors presents even more opportunities for the Indy Racing League and its race teams

[HardPoint]

oh my.

And 2003: "The Program is designed to ensure the availability of competitive equipment, and thereby prevent one or two teams from having equipment which is unavailable to the other competitors."


Now December 2005: "The way we were structured in 2003 and '04 and '05, actually our agreements with the competing engine manufacturers allowed for special treatments to certain teams.


Theres no spinning or denying the obvious on that one.

[speed up]

Are both of you guys retired?? Both of you have dug up articles three years ago. Man it would be nice to have that kind of time

[HardPoint]

Its important to not ignore history Speedup

[Tony Johns]

Are both of you guys retired?? Both of you have dug up articles three years ago. Man it would be nice to have that kind of time

Ad hominem. Move along. Address the issue.

[Mack Too]

My view of some of the 2002 engines was that of smoke, fire and oil-under-the-tires related crashes after some of the low cost rebuilds from the wannabe builders put expensive cars in the fence and hurt some drivers. The engines from the last generation of Honda's Chevy's and Toyota's were some of the most reliable ever (unless R&D types decided to push the envelope too far). While parts failures will cause some failures, if you don't blow one up once in a while, you don't know how far you can twist the tail. A lot of you detest leasing, but I know of a lot of racers that have bought costly engines and have them fail, leaving them with an oiled up mass of scrap metal, to dirty to even use as a boat anchor. When you blow up an engine from a lease program, or break it in several pieces in a crash, you open up a container and pull out a fresh one.

[AdamM]

My view of some of the 2002 engines was that of smoke, fire and oil-under-the-tires related crashes after some of the low cost rebuilds from the wannabe builders put expensive cars in the fence and hurt some drivers. The engines from the last generation of Honda's Chevy's and Toyota's were some of the most reliable ever (unless R&D types decided to push the envelope too far). While parts failures will cause some failures, if you don't blow one up once in a while, you don't know how far you can twist the tail. A lot of you detest leasing, but I know of a lot of racers that have bought costly engines and have them fail, leaving them with an oiled up mass of scrap metal, to dirty to even use as a boat anchor. When you blow up an engine from a lease program, or break it in several pieces in a crash, you open up a container and pull out a fresh one.

Of course comparing an engine formula in the tenth year to the first years is silly, especially when they later reduced the displacement by shortening the stroke. By 2001 the IRL engines done by independent builders had very few failures at half the cost and under that system the league had enough entires to actually make a spot on the starting grid of the Indy 500 something a driver earned.

[jonovision_man]

Are both of you guys retired?? Both of you have dug up articles three years ago. Man it would be nice to have that kind of time

This is a Biz forum.

When management from a series makes forward-looking statements that turn out to be completely and utterly false, it deserves scrutiny. It's actually pretty shocking just how wrong they were about Toyota and Honda... either they were naive or intentionally misleading.

I'm guessing naive.

jono

[Mack Too]

Of course comparing an engine formula in the tenth year to the first years is silly, especially when they later reduced the displacement by shortening the stroke. By 2001 the IRL engines done by independent builders had very few failures at half the cost and under that system the league had enough entires to actually make a spot on the starting grid of the Indy 500 something a driver earned.

I can think of about three builders in 2002 that 50% or greater failure rates. Besides, nobody builds their own engines anymore, and most of the 2001 and 2002 builds were side door leases anyway.

[Craigar1]

oh my.

And 2003: "The Program is designed to ensure the availability of competitive equipment, and thereby prevent one or two teams from having equipment which is unavailable to the other competitors."


Now December 2005: "The way we were structured in 2003 and '04 and '05, actually our agreements with the competing engine manufacturers allowed for special treatments to certain teams.


Theres no spinning or denying the obvious on that one.

There will be spinning and denying, but it won't be convincing.