Commentary by Rick Carlton - Allrace Magazine

SHIP OF FOOLS

Prior to the post-war initiation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Naval Officers were expected to conform their leadership behavior to constraints imposed within the Articles for the Government of the United States Navy, colloquially known as "Rocks and Shoals." Under Article 8, therein, officers faced dire consequences in the event that they, "...suffered any vessel of the Navy to be stranded or run upon rocks and shoals, or improperly hazarded." Had CART's leadership applied a similar caution in its management of Toyota's allegations against Honda and Cosworth, perhaps they would not have found themselves in the position they currently occupy - that of a ship foundering, after having been run hard aground by its Captain.

For those who have not followed the issue, or its potential to destroy America's premiere open-wheel series, a short review is in order. Prior to Belle Isle, in the wake of CART's failure to run at Fort Worth due to g-load concerns, the sanctioning body held an open test seeking ways to slow its cars down. During the test, along with a review of alternative aerodynamic drag devices, teams were asked to test an 0.75 inch spacer to be placed between the pop-off valve and each engine's air-plenum mount. The change was apparently represented as an attempt to position the valve's pressure measurement transducer in a way that caused the device to respond more accurately and insure that constant boost pressure, and consequent horsepower, was being evenly controlled across each of the three engine platforms. In due course, the spacer was applied and tested, although CART made no official determination on its effectiveness, or subsequent application, during the session.

The following week, just prior to the Belle Isle event, CART suddenly issued a no notice mandate, with immediate effect, requiring that the spacer be used throughout the race weekend. Further, the motive behind the decision was, at the time, rumored to be an allegation by Toyota that Honda and Cosworth were employing a plenum "work-around" that enabled them to spoof the valve's 36 inch boost limit and, thereby, produce horsepower in excess of what might normally be expected within the rules. The spacer decision, which initially caused a quasi-boycott by Honda/Cosworth teams during Friday morning's practice session, was subsequently appealed by Honda on the basis that the no notice mandate was in contravention of CART's own rule-making policies. The appeal was denied, however, and teams ran the spacer during the weekend, albeit under a continuing protest.

Following the event, Honda filed a second, more formal, appeal which, under the sanctioning body's rules, required a three judge panel, the head of which, was to be appointed by CART. In the event, the panel was chaired by Philip Elliot, a retired Michigan Circuit Court Judge who, in-turn, selected Dennis Dean VP of Business Development for the SCCA, and R. Steven Hearn Attorney for the American Powerboat Association as co-panelists. Testimony was heard by all parties, including Yoshiaki Kinoshita, VP of Racing in the U.S., which confirmed that Toyota was, indeed, proffering allegations of cheating on the part of Honda and Cosworth, that CART had in fact reacted as a result of those allegations and that, regardless, Honda's plenum design had been previously approved for use by CART's Hal Whiteford and was, therefore, a defacto legal design regardless of Toyota's allegations to the contrary. In response to the testimony, the panel judged that CART had erred in its mandate and placed a moratorium on the spacer's use for three races, in order to allow the sanctioning body and its engine suppliers to confer in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

Unfortunately, the proposition that CART, along with its three engine suppliers, could reach a mutual rapprochement was naive in the extreme. This was particularly true in the context of the junior engine supplier having openly accused the two senior suppliers of blatantly cheating while, at the same time, seeming to suggest that CART's lack of assertiveness during the second hearing abandoned them to the ultimate result. In that light, Toyota's Lee White fired off a letter to Joe Hietzler on July 6th and, this time, there was more than simple rhetoric in play.

White opened by stating that "It is clear that the merit of the issues were ignored in a bald political maneuver apparently designed to mollify Honda," and then righteously states that, "Toyota is still interested in moving forward with exploring ways to remove the specter of cheating and thus improve the long-term health of CART and its racing activities." These statements clearly suggest that any price paid for Toyota's continued involvement in the series would come at the expense of a complete evisceration of both Honda and Cosworth; whether in the board room, the rules committee, the press, or on the racetrack. An opening position that could only have been viewed with alarm by in the halls of Bloomfield Hills.

Interestingly, the tone of White's letter seems more like that of a spurned girlfriend, who's paramour has just refused to leave his wife, than a communication between an engine supplier and a sanctioning body President. In this characteristic, however, the ham-handed management skills of Joe Heitzler and his management minion survivors can be seen and, as a result, CART has no one to blame but themselves. When viewed objectively it is clear that the whole issue was triggered by CART's profoundly incompetent, "ready-shoot-aim" reaction to Toyota's complaint, a reaction that also appeared to compromise the sanctioning body's professional impartiality. Perceptions aside, however, CART now finds itself in what may well be its last management pickle as it again struggles to free itself from being crushed between the proverbial "rock and a hard place."

Consider the magnitude of the latest problem. If CART sides with Honda, then Toyota leaves the series, albeit with its virtue intact as a pious entity anointed by its concern for the "...health of CART and its racing activities." On the other hand, if CART sides with Toyota, then certainly Honda, and most likely, Cosworth will venture into the sunset in successive huffs. In either case, CART is left with too many teams, not enough engines and no management credibility, holding a festering brown bag full of cow flop, worth about as much as the cost of the bag itself. All of which brings us, again, to the issue of leadership responsibility for the current mess.

In the Navy from which "rocks and shoals" evolved there was a practical reason for rigid institutional rules and a demand for responsible leadership. Captains entrusted with warships, and their crews, were frequently on their own; plying the seas in search of the next hot spot, and dependent only on a personal interpretation of their orders, and a small cadre of junior officers, to keep discipline, morale, and combat effectiveness high; and there was no margin for error. Character, training, experience and commitment to leadership based on a fixed code of ethics were paramount virtues, and individuals that did not meet, or respect, the criteria ended up "on the beach" or worse.

Over the decades, of course, the world evolved away from leadership formed by codes of honor and toward techniques rooted in "situational" ethics, which can change moment by moment. However, in business, particularly, high-stakes public business, the principals of leadership embodied in "rocks and shoals" may still be actively applied.. Because the leaders of good companies know that the man at the top is responsible for every image, every action, and every result of his company's operations - good or bad - since responsible leadership breeds confidence and, ultimately, success. After all that's why Joe Heitzler is being paid big bucks. But, unfortunately, CART isn't getting their money's worth as Smokin' Joe has repeatedly run his ship aground, and in doing so, has caused CART's stakeholders, and most damagingly, its fans to suffer watching a racing series that had every opportunity to become North America's preeminent motorsports vehicle, fall into a morass of lawsuits, embarrassing professional gaffs, and management miscues not seen since Andre' Maginot pronounced the line of fixed fortifications he had built facing Germany, "impregnable."

Have Honda and Cosworth figured out a way to beat CART's pop-off valve? Probably. This is, after all, car racing, not cow racing with the object being to win races, not churn butter. For its part, Toyota shouldn't be too quick to throw stones since they've produced they're own share of clever cheats over the years. Anyone remember the flap over the hidden turbo inlet duct on Toyota's World Rally Championship cars several years ago? That move got them banned from the Championship as well.

It should come as no surprise that, at CART's level, an engineer's singular purpose is to get the greatest performance out of the components at hand, and all three companies employ some of the smartest people on the planet. Additionally, CART clearly approved both Honda's, and subsequently Cosworth's, plenum designs, therefore, they are defacto legal within the current rules. At the end of the day, therefore, if the two companies have managed to develop an approach that abrogates the pop-off valve's constraints, why overreact? Just investigate and, if necessary, convene the rules committee and change the engineering protocols. But mange the process professionally, in a way that brings credit to the participants, not the "monkey-on-a-football" evolution that we've seen CART produce of late. Of course, such an approach requires leadership based on sound experience, common sense, and above all an overriding commitment to take responsibility for ones decisions. Unfortunately, in this, CART now clearly finds itself at a distinct disadvantage....AR

There's more op-ed where this came from! To subscribe to "AllRace Magazine - The Internet's Motorsports Weekly" click HERE!