Actually the big heads at GM don't seem to 'get' racing quite as much as they should, Their success in ALMS is selling a ton of Corvettes and making Chevy look good. They should think about this more seriously going forward when deciding what to cut and what not to cut. The ALMS GT1 racing program is run by Pratt & Miller which is actually an outside firm -- and maybe GM could go racing this way -- by "badging" an engine (Ford/Cosworth style) and using an outside firm like Pratt & Miller to coordinate the racing program.


Remember those awesome Illmor/Chevy Turbos from IndyRacing's past? Man, I would LOVE to see that again.


But, as Smuff76 rightly points out, maybe some of the new engine offerings WILL be high-injection commputer controlled Turbo-Diesels. If so, I just hope they sound as cool as they run; theres gotta be some way to make a cooler tuned exhaust note for those things. I like the Audi R8's much more than the R10 diesels based on the sound alone.

Would Ethanol stay if not all of the engine choices were gas/ethanol based??

Would likely be easy for Porsche to develop a turbo diesel racing motor -- as their sister companies Volkswagon and Audi have been doing Diesel tech and R&D;already now for years. Although I don't know what their corporate policy is on data sharing.

CDodson - 31 August 2008 11:16 PM

That is great, if true...


It only took 18 years for them to forget the vigerous rogering that CART delivered to get them to go away in the first place.

It's amazing Walker even hung in there.... good man.

Please explain the "vigerous [sic] rogering" that CART gave to Porsche.

Was it CART's fault that a seemingly tidy and competent '89 program went to pot in '90?

Was it CART's fault that Porsche decided to build an illegal chassis and they had to build a tube-frame/aluminum honeycomb replacement at the last minute? Derrick Walker gave the go-ahead to build the all-CF chassis before getting a rule clarification - not CART's fault, but his.

Was it CART's fault that the aforementioned 1990 chassis could seldom make the finish because they placed the brake fluid reservoir next to the turbo housing, thus boiling away their brake fluid by the 3/4 point of a race?

Was it CART's fault that the chassis/engine package was so bad that Teo Fabi just up and parked the car on several occasions?

Was it CART's fault that once March and Porsche were done hastily designing the 1990 90P (P for "Pig" as it was known), they realized they had barely left room for the driver, so they had to Keep Fabi and find another tiny driver (Jon Andretti) to fill the spots?

So, again, how was it CART's fault?

The engine/chassis combo was a lawn tractor and Porsche embarrased themselves in 1990 because they took a calculated risk and lost. Too bad because the '89 program had gobs of potential and even won. I think DW is a great team manager and Porsche is a truly quality marque, but together they made every wrong decision in 1990. CART's fault? Hardly.

Good reading on the subject here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDA1F3FF933A05757C0A966958260&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=1

Revel - 02 September 2008 09:19 AM

But, as Smuff76 rightly points out, maybe some of the new engine offerings WILL be high-injection commputer controlled Turbo-Diesels. If so, I just hope they sound as cool as they run; theres gotta be some way to make a cooler tuned exhaust note for those things. I like the Audi R8's much more than the R10 diesels based on the sound alone.

Would Ethanol stay if not all of the engine choices were gas/ethanol based??

Would likely be easy for Porsche to develop a turbo diesel racing motor -- as their sister companies Volkswagon and Audi have been doing Diesel tech and R&D;already now for years. Although I don't know what their corporate policy is on data sharing.

I can't see the ICS having a diesel. The ALMS manufacturers are all looking at LMP1 because what they all want is overall wins especially at Le Mans.

If they (Honda is in LMP1 in 2009 and Porsche is logically next) go LMP1 the Spiders will be privateered and still needing motors. Do you give your privateers an expensive motor and run the risk of one of your customers beating you on the tight, narrow courses where the LMP2's thrive? Or do you create a new, cheaper motor that you can use in both ICS and LMP2 and sell them to the privateers? Logic (which doesn't always fly.......) would dictate cheapening yout LMP2 motor by multi-platforming it so you lower your costs all the way around. If Honda and Porsche are on board with this logic then they are still fighting it out in LMP2 and one doesn't have an advantage over the other.

brundle - 02 September 2008 10:23 AM

CDodson - 31 August 2008 11:16 PM

That is great, if true...


It only took 18 years for them to forget the vigerous rogering that CART delivered to get them to go away in the first place.

It's amazing Walker even hung in there.... good man.

Please explain the "vigerous [sic] rogering" that CART gave to Porsche.

Was it CART's fault that a seemingly tidy and competent '89 program went to pot in '90?

Was it CART's fault that Porsche decided to build an illegal chassis and they had to build a tube-frame/aluminum honeycomb replacement at the last minute? Derrick Walker gave the go-ahead to build the all-CF chassis before getting a rule clarification - not CART's fault, but his.

Was it CART's fault that the aforementioned 1990 chassis could seldom make the finish because they placed the brake fluid reservoir next to the turbo housing, thus boiling away their brake fluid by the 3/4 point of a race?

Was it CART's fault that the chassis/engine package was so bad that Teo Fabi just up and parked the car on several occasions?

Was it CART's fault that once March and Porsche were done hastily designing the 1990 90P (P for "Pig" as it was known), they realized they had barely left room for the driver, so they had to Keep Fabi and find another tiny driver (Jon Andretti) to fill the spots?

So, again, how was it CART's fault?

The engine/chassis combo was a lawn tractor and Porsche embarrased themselves in 1990 because they took a calculated risk and lost. Too bad because the '89 program had gobs of potential and even won. I think DW is a great team manager and Porsche is a truly quality marque, but together they made every wrong decision in 1990. CART's fault? Hardly.

Good reading on the subject here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDA1F3FF933A05757C0A966958260&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=1

They (DW et al ) did not make a wrong decision, you show me in the rules of 89/90 where that chassis was illegal.

It's not there.. they owners voted to have it outlawed and after that it was all down hill for the team. Sure the engine was heavy because the car was supposed to be LIGHT. The "inmates running the asylum" did not want to get their butts handed to them by engineering that was years ahead of their current chassis (and one of the owners having a stake in a competitors chassis that was starting to, and would end up dominating, had nothing to do with it I'm sure).

One of the "reasons" floated out there was "not having an adequate understanding of the material properties of the chassis"... BS. After that they finally hired Dale Brosius to help write the new specs so that when they were confronted with the Truesports 91C they knew what they were looking at... of course by then March was out of the picture and Truesports was hardly a threat.

<removes tin hat>

Couple that with the other affront committed in 1980 to an innovative flat 6 engine was hamstrung by another "last minuet" decision to reduce the available boost, making the lump quite uncompetitive. Just one of the first of many p'ing contests between USAC and CART. Yea, great management by the sanctioning bodies

With all they money NAOWR has cost them, it's amazing they are willing to come back EVER.

BTW, they won that race in 89 because they accidentally short filled and had the speed for an extra stop without loosing the lead. At the time DW stated that had they told Teo they short filled him he would have parked it again!!

I hope they have better luck this time, but with TG and the gang driving the bus, I am in wait and see mode.

Alles Klar! Ich sprocht mit Porsche in Zueffenhausen und Weisach.....





Okay, let's back track just a tad. The article is in German, however it does not say anything regarding dual formula applications. Nothing about ALMS, at least not at this stage.

In a nutshell, it states that Porsche is interested in attending the September summit, as the turbo formula is of interest to them.

A few items more, just off the seat of the pants here.

Forget the U.S. market as a whole for a moment...

Porsche sells more cars in California alone than they do in Germany.

Getting back the the rest of the U.S., Porsche also have their largest dealership in the world in Florida.

I don't have the stats with me at the moment, but the percentage of Porsche's sold in the U.S. is very, very high. Without the U.S. market and Dr. Wiedeking, Porsche would never have purchased thier interest in the VW group.

Bottom line is: The U.S. is a vital market for Porsche and the rules for the new formula have peaked their interest significantly.

I'm looking forward to seeing them at the summit this month.



.

CDodson - 02 September 2008 02:41 PM

brundle - 02 September 2008 10:23 AM

CDodson - 31 August 2008 11:16 PM

That is great, if true...


It only took 18 years for them to forget the vigerous rogering that CART delivered to get them to go away in the first place.

It's amazing Walker even hung in there.... good man.

Please explain the "vigerous [sic] rogering" that CART gave to Porsche.

Was it CART's fault that a seemingly tidy and competent '89 program went to pot in '90?

Was it CART's fault that Porsche decided to build an illegal chassis and they had to build a tube-frame/aluminum honeycomb replacement at the last minute? Derrick Walker gave the go-ahead to build the all-CF chassis before getting a rule clarification - not CART's fault, but his.

Was it CART's fault that the aforementioned 1990 chassis could seldom make the finish because they placed the brake fluid reservoir next to the turbo housing, thus boiling away their brake fluid by the 3/4 point of a race?

Was it CART's fault that the chassis/engine package was so bad that Teo Fabi just up and parked the car on several occasions?

Was it CART's fault that once March and Porsche were done hastily designing the 1990 90P (P for "Pig" as it was known), they realized they had barely left room for the driver, so they had to Keep Fabi and find another tiny driver (Jon Andretti) to fill the spots?

So, again, how was it CART's fault?

The engine/chassis combo was a lawn tractor and Porsche embarrased themselves in 1990 because they took a calculated risk and lost. Too bad because the '89 program had gobs of potential and even won. I think DW is a great team manager and Porsche is a truly quality marque, but together they made every wrong decision in 1990. CART's fault? Hardly.

Good reading on the subject here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDA1F3FF933A05757C0A966958260&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=1

They (DW et al ) did not make a wrong decision, you show me in the rules of 89/90 where that chassis was illegal.

It's not there.. they owners voted to have it outlawed and after that it was all down hill for the team. Sure the engine was heavy because the car was supposed to be LIGHT. The "inmates running the asylum" did not want to get their butts handed to them by engineering that was years ahead of their current chassis (and one of the owners having a stake in a competitors chassis that was starting to, and would end up dominating, had nothing to do with it I'm sure).

One of the "reasons" floated out there was "not having an adequate understanding of the material properties of the chassis"... BS. After that they finally hired Dale Brosius to help write the new specs so that when they were confronted with the Truesports 91C they knew what they were looking at... of course by then March was out of the picture and Truesports was hardly a threat.

<removes tin hat>

Couple that with the other affront committed in 1980 to an innovative flat 6 engine was hamstrung by another "last minuet" decision to reduce the available boost, making the lump quite uncompetitive. Just one of the first of many p'ing contests between USAC and CART. Yea, great management by the sanctioning bodies

With all they money NAOWR has cost them, it's amazing they are willing to come back EVER.

BTW, they won that race in 89 because they accidentally short filled and had the speed for an extra stop without loosing the lead. At the time DW stated that had they told Teo they short filled him he would have parked it again!!

I hope they have better luck this time, but with TG and the gang driving the bus, I am in wait and see mode.

All valid points, but they also point to the fact that Walker miscalculated badly. Not only did he 'interpret' (and subsequently commit his, Porsche's and March's resources to a doomed car) a rule before getting clarification, he failed to correctly calculate the politcal den of snakes he was deeply involved with. And he was on the rules committee! The CF version of that car (90C) probably would have had the goods, but we'll never know

Yes, the inmates were running the asylum, but Walker was as much an inmate at the time as any of them

Revel - 01 September 2008 06:41 PM

From what I understand ACO is in the process of amending the entire P1 landscape; Including sweeping rule changes. The closed-top proto-type from Peugeuot is the first sign of this, The rumors I heard.. is an odd-merging of P1 and Gt1. And don't know if you've heard the buzz about Chevy's mid-engine LMp1 Corvette car but it looks hot.

I don't know what the LeMans engine package choices will be.. but I'd heard rumblings about this part of it -- that as in F1., the manufacterer's are chasing after all racing orgs. and sanctioning bodies to make motorracing feature 'road-car-relevant' future technologies, and to make the racing sports cars.. look more like the road cars.. hence the Proto-GT1 merger idea.

Another interesting Sports Car rumor is that GM is thinking about using the Pratt and Miller Vette format to host the Cadillac XLR in GT1. Moving the Vette up to LMP1. That would be pretty interesting.. Caddy's Proto's were pretty hot a few years ago.

Cadillac is presently becoming a racing/performance sedan marque like BMW.

What if GM brings the Cadillac name to IndyCar Racing, rather than Chevy? Although I love the idea of a Chevy return .. That (having Caddilac) would be pretty upscale. I also think Caddy would be a fitting marque for F1 -- But, IndyRacing could use the boost and the American class and clout. Remember those Cadillacs in the Movie 'Matrix Reloaded '-- ? I think the Cadilac cars appearance in the movie helped kick-start the CTS and Escalade sales -- and IndyCar would then indirectly have a 'Matrix' cult-connection.

As you guys have already mentioned.. the Penske/Porsche connex. makes sense.. and if you think about it, Porsche is FAMOUS for many things.. but amongst them (and almost foremost) Porsche is famous for it's turbocharged motors.

Cadillac has no turbo charged vehicles to market so that wouldn't make sense.

Ford is slapping a turbo on everything in the next few years, but they just left? Maybe they should try again and include Mazda?

I still like the VW/Audi/Porsche possibility the best.

smuff76 - 02 September 2008 10:44 AM

Revel - 02 September 2008 09:19 AM

But, as Smuff76 rightly points out, maybe some of the new engine offerings WILL be high-injection commputer controlled Turbo-Diesels. If so, I just hope they sound as cool as they run; theres gotta be some way to make a cooler tuned exhaust note for those things. I like the Audi R8's much more than the R10 diesels based on the sound alone.

Would Ethanol stay if not all of the engine choices were gas/ethanol based??

Would likely be easy for Porsche to develop a turbo diesel racing motor -- as their sister companies Volkswagon and Audi have been doing Diesel tech and R&D;already now for years. Although I don't know what their corporate policy is on data sharing.

I can't see the ICS having a diesel. The ALMS manufacturers are all looking at LMP1 because what they all want is overall wins especially at Le Mans.

If they (Honda is in LMP1 in 2009 and Porsche is logically next) go LMP1 the Spiders will be privateered and still needing motors. Do you give your privateers an expensive motor and run the risk of one of your customers beating you on the tight, narrow courses where the LMP2's thrive? Or do you create a new, cheaper motor that you can use in both ICS and LMP2 and sell them to the privateers? Logic (which doesn't always fly.......) would dictate cheapening yout LMP2 motor by multi-platforming it so you lower your costs all the way around. If Honda and Porsche are on board with this logic then they are still fighting it out in LMP2 and one doesn't have an advantage over the other.

that logic is flawed however. as audi have shown, an LMP1 can beat the LMP2's on a tight course. and the new honda chassis for LMP1 will be a BIG step beyond the current car (which is based on a flawed courage tub). there is no need to spend millions on developing a common LMP2 motor with IndyCar when you're not spending any money on LMP2 anyway, and there's no need for a slower motor for privateer teams (when you can just keep the settings tame through the factory appointed engineers looking after the engine).

the motor would be common with an LMP1 motor, if it is to be common with any motor at all. honda is building a new engine for LMP1, so getting additional use would make HRD's job a lot easier (by giving them only 1 motor to care about, since they're no longer focusing on the LMP2). it would also make sense for porsche (who have been rumoured to be looking at LMP1)...

Red Ryder - 02 September 2008 05:54 PM

Revel - 01 September 2008 06:41 PM

From what I understand ACO is in the process of amending the entire P1 landscape; Including sweeping rule changes. The closed-top proto-type from Peugeuot is the first sign of this, The rumors I heard.. is an odd-merging of P1 and Gt1. And don't know if you've heard the buzz about Chevy's mid-engine LMp1 Corvette car but it looks hot.

I don't know what the LeMans engine package choices will be.. but I'd heard rumblings about this part of it -- that as in F1., the manufacterer's are chasing after all racing orgs. and sanctioning bodies to make motorracing feature 'road-car-relevant' future technologies, and to make the racing sports cars.. look more like the road cars.. hence the Proto-GT1 merger idea.

Another interesting Sports Car rumor is that GM is thinking about using the Pratt and Miller Vette format to host the Cadillac XLR in GT1. Moving the Vette up to LMP1. That would be pretty interesting.. Caddy's Proto's were pretty hot a few years ago.

Cadillac is presently becoming a racing/performance sedan marque like BMW.

What if GM brings the Cadillac name to IndyCar Racing, rather than Chevy? Although I love the idea of a Chevy return .. That (having Caddilac) would be pretty upscale. I also think Caddy would be a fitting marque for F1 -- But, IndyRacing could use the boost and the American class and clout. Remember those Cadillacs in the Movie 'Matrix Reloaded '-- ? I think the Cadilac cars appearance in the movie helped kick-start the CTS and Escalade sales -- and IndyCar would then indirectly have a 'Matrix' cult-connection.

As you guys have already mentioned.. the Penske/Porsche connex. makes sense.. and if you think about it, Porsche is FAMOUS for many things.. but amongst them (and almost foremost) Porsche is famous for it's turbocharged motors.

Cadillac has no turbo charged vehicles to market so that wouldn't make sense.

Ford is slapping a turbo on everything in the next few years, but they just left? Maybe they should try again and include Mazda?

I still like the VW/Audi/Porsche possibility the best.

With fuel economy becoming paramount in the last year or so, manufacturers are all looking into smaller, more fuel efficient engines, albeit with similar power to their current engines, or at least close.

Cadillac may not currently have a turbocharged engine, but you can bet your bank account and the house you live in that they are currently looking into a turbocharger or a supercharger in their development laboratories as you read this.


Posters here continue to raise the issue of comparability with ALMS, where Porsche is currently running. Well, they are currently running a V8 there and I don't have to tell anyone here that the new Indy Car engine will either be a V6 or an I4.

Porsche's possible interest in Indy Car is for Indy Car alone, at this stage.

That deserves repeating:

Porsche's possible interest in Indy Car is for Indy Car alone, at this stage.


With our new formula coming to light, who knows if ALMS will or will not adapt to something related? As it stands right now, that's not Porsche's interest in looking into Indy Car. I really can't say what ALMS and Porsche's future entails. I find it difficult to believe that Porsche would compete on a factory basis in both ALMS and Indy Car.

Whatever endeavor that Porsche elects to enter in the coming years, it has to make sense for them. Last year was a banner year for them selling 34693 units in the United States (98,702 world wide). In the current market, very impressive indeed! Regardless, I doubt that Porsche will support two series with a factory effort. It will be one or the other.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Porsche in Weisach, Germany develop many components for other manufacturers. They may develop a suspension system for a Fiat and a cooling system for a Jaguar. The current 997 (911) Tiptronic utilizes a Mercedes Benz automatic transmission. 5 will get you 10 Porsche had a hand in that transmission's original development as well.

Point being, that Porsche may have interests other than, or in addition to it's own for looking into Indy Car.

I'm hoping the Schwabian's like what they see should they come for the summit.

I'd like to think Roger Penske is doing all he can to get Porsche or another one of his manufacturer partners from another series to come to the IRL. Same for the other non-Honda owners with cars in other series. Once the teams have help coming in from engine suppliers as well as sponsors, the sooner we can forget about the days of Milka and Mad Dog...