Q&A: Jim Covey (GM engine development manager)

With the cost of competing continuing to rise in the Nextel Cup, rival manufacturers are continually looking for ways to contain their outgoings. Among those ideas put forward, is the 'one team' approach designed to help teams racing under the same engine banner to pool complaints and ideas in search of a common cure.

Jim Covey, NASCAR engine development manager for GM Racing, was asked about the 'one team' approach on the eve of the season-opening Budweiser Shootout, and admitted that he was all for it.

Q:
Is the one team approach really a new idea?

Jim Covey:
No, it's certainly not a new idea at GM Racing. We have been taking that approach for quite some time. Richard Childress first suggested to GM back in 1990 that, instead of everyone dealing with all of their engine durability issues separately, let's share a list of who's having problems with various components. So we started doing that 14 years ago, and that was the beginning of GM's 'one team' engine development process.

Q:
How does it work?

JC:
After each race, the teams report to GM Racing any mechanical problems they had with any engine components. We merge the list to look for common issues, whether it be with a GM component or an aftermarket part. We're not trying to place blame on anyone, but to identify and resolve common problems for all the teams as quickly as possible. The first thing we do is alert the teams if we see a common design or manufacturing problem with a camshaft, cylinder head or piston that would affect all the teams using that component. When we identify a problem, we use failure analysis testing to identify the cause, and get it corrected as quickly as possible.

Q:
Are there other ways that GM uses the 'one team' approach for engine development?

JC:
When development work began on the GM SB2 engine in 1991-92, we used the 'one team' approach. We brought our key GM engine builders together to define the best possible engine incorporating their combined experience and expertise. Prior to that, GM Racing used the traditional approach of designing and developing components within our department, and then giving them to the teams to use.

Q:
Have you continued to use that development approach on other projects?

JC:
This development process is applied to all new GM Racing components. For instance, when we design a new cylinder head, our key team partners give their input on things such as optimum valve angle. We have the parts rapid prototyped and tested by the teams, and the design that everyone agrees has the best performance is selected. On future components that all the teams will use, it's in their best interests to have the best possible design. If GM submits the wrong cylinder head or intake manifold for NASCAR approval, it's not in the teams' best interest. They all have to race with it.

Q:
Aren't the teams reluctant to share proprietary performance secrets?

JC:
Our focus is on fundamental design and durability issues on shared components used by all the teams. The teams wouldn't want to share how they port their cylinder heads, for instance, and we don't ask. We want to give them the best possible cylinder head architecture to work with, and then let each team fine tune it to their own specifications within the NASCAR rules. All the teams contribute to this process and all the teams gain from it. But, at the end of the day, each team wants to find a few horsepower more than all the other teams.