Comments on: Are Engine Failures Always A Bad Thing?

By: IndyCar Race Preview: Iowa Corn Indy 250

IndyCar Race Preview: Iowa Corn Indy 250 — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:41:33 +0000

[...] and most insightful IndyCar blogs out there, and one of my personal favorites. Check out “Are Engine Failures Always a Bad Thing? ” for an example of the high quality posts on the [...]

By: IndyCar Race Preview: Iowa Corn Indy 250 : NASCAR commentary,NASCAR video,NASCAR pictures, Bench Racing With Steve and Charlie

Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:36:32 +0000

[...] and most insightful IndyCar blogs out there, and one of my personal favorites. Check out “Are Engine Failures Always a Bad Thing?” for an example of the high quality posts on the [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:48:25 +0000

From your post to Randy’s ears, George. This series needs the competitors to be pushing more than the limits of their tire grip.

By: JamesO

JamesO — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:57:32 +0000

One of the things I used to enjoy watching in the early IRL days were the Mendards Team drivers (Arie Luyendyk and I think Scott Sharp), who’d have rocket ships–until the engine let go. Wondering whether this would be the year they’d make it all the way (or betting on when they’d let go) was great fun.

By: BC

BC — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:12:23 +0000

Case in point: 1987 500 (which I saw on ESPN classic for the first time this May)

Mario Andretti’s a lap ahead of the field, but don’t get too excited – he’s driving one of the new Chevrolet engines, which, as the announcers have discussed, is more powerful but less reliable than the tried and true(ish) Cosworths used by the majority of the competitors.

This ain’t idle chatter, either, as one-by-one we see cars exiting the race with mechanical problems, more often than not due to failure of – you guessed it – a Chevy powerplant. With every lap the tension increases. IS MARIO GOING TO MAKE IT?

The threat of failure on every lap has, until very recently, been an essential trait on the Indianapolis 500. Tell me one fan has been added because of the reliability of the engines. Tell me one fan WOULDN’T be added if, say, Ryan Briscoe’s engine had blown 20 laps from the end of last week’s race.

By: The Speedgeek

The Speedgeek — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:08:37 +0000

mmack,
I was thinking that one or two of the Aurora builders had quietly switched to more of a lease-style model before Toyota and Honda had even showed up. I could be wrong here, though. Specifically, I thought that maybe Speedway Motors and (more likely) Roush had gone to that model, to limit the number of people who’d buy an engine of theirs, open it up and let a competitor take a look at the internals. I had a contact or two at one of those places a few years ago, but it’s probably been too long for me to get much in the way of info now.

By: Steve K

Steve K — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:48:13 +0000

Engine failures would give is another way for us to not see Moraes finish a race!

By: Dylan

Dylan — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:21:19 +0000

In the World Superbike Race at Miller, one rider checked out in both races. He had the race won, then suffered mechanical failure, twice! It meant that for people watching there was a reason to keep watching, because there was potential for the runaway leader not winning. In an Indycar race, he’d have had no challange, unless his pit crew messed up.

By: mmack

mmack — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:08:50 +0000

Speedgeek,

The engine leasing program started when Honda and Toyota appeared in the IRL in 2003. Prior to that you built or bought your own engine. Many IRL teams, like teams do in NA$CAR, bought an engine from an engine builder like Brayton Engineering, Comptech, or Roush.

By: Leigh O'Gorman

Leigh O'Gorman — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:06:32 +0000

There’s a brilliant story that Niki Lauda used to tell years ago. He would always say that “if a driver had one retirement, that was unfortunate. If a driver had second retirement, that was very unusual. However, if a driver retired with the same problem for a third time, then the driver was doing something wrong.”

It makes sense when – as you said George – these parts are detuned to such a degree, that the drivers can abuse and destroy their equipment and not be punished for it (for the most part) and I if the machinery isn’t being pushed right to the edge, then there are drivers out that are potentially not being punished for drives that tear most equipment apart.
I’m not saying that I want races to finish three cars, but there is an inherent skill in getting your machine when you may have shoved it over the edge,