Multiple Manufactures?

[danny123]

Last night during my insomnia i was thinking about random things and this popped in my head. I think most of us here will agree that eventually we would like to see multiple chassis, and engine manufactures. I remember back when there was Reynard, Lola, Swift, Eagle, Penske(i think?) If I remember correctly the Reynard was a little more competetive then the others, so here is the question. Since Id imagine they would want to keep the cost of the sport down? Is it still possable to have multiple chassis and keep the cost down. To have a competeive chassis it takes money windtunnel time and whatnot. Another thing that i dont remember from the good days, how do multiple chassis co exist, i mean lets say one chassis is far more superior, and everyone is in the bussiness of winning, wouldnt they just change over chassis? Isnt that what kinda happened to Chevy(i think it was in the IRL) they were so overpower by Honda, and Toyota they pulled out? Or do you think they would handicap the the better chassis with balast like they do in SCCA Speed series, to keep all the teams on a level playing field? I dont think i worded it the best, but i hope you guys see where im coming from?

-Dan

[V12]

It can be a tough balancing act - I mean at one point virtually everyone had switched to Reynard in mid-90s CART except for Penske, Eagle and Newman-Haas (Swift) who had vested interests in their own chassis programs, and even Penske abandoned theirs in 2000. Then of course Lola started making a comeback and the field was nicely balanced for a while until Reynard went bust and development stopped on the 02I, and the series soon became a Lola benefit. This of course also happened in IRL when the Dallara became a much more competitive proposition than the G-Force and everyone switched to them.

Having a diverse schedule helps I think though - I mean one chassis could be more competitive on street and road courses, one could be the better oval package, therefore making it not a straightforward decision and leading to a bit more diversity in equipment as well.

Personally I think you can't legislate against having one chassis superior to the rest and everybody using that - look at Dallara in F3 as well. Even Grand-Am is having problems with the Riley being the equipment of choice by some way, however there are still other makes out there.

Either way I don't think a spec car should ever be mandated in the way Champ Car did with the Panoz in 2007, especially when Lola had a design on the drawing board as well.

[fan-veteran]

Multiple chassis manufacturers = higher cost. Very clever rules are needed to cut expenditures to the lowest possible. I think that a great manufacturers support is needed for a multiple chassis situation to be viable, or in other words - from manufacturers must come the funding. Similar situation exists in F1 - enourmous expenditures from great companies. There is similarity in ALMS also i think. Of course in IndyCar money should not be so ridiculously much as in F1.

[Rex Monaco]

I don't think that cost constraints and top tiered racing go hand in hand.

Make a set of rules and let sponsors and manufacturers determine how much they are willing to spend to win.

That's how technology is developed and pushed. And that's what racing should be about, since we also have to contrain speed.

How about a series that adheres to the US 2012 CAFE standards, and sets a minimum/maximum weight for the chassis and then leaves everyone to do what they think works best?

[danny123]

you cant just have sponsors and manufactures determine how much to spend for developemt? Youll end up like F1, and have a boring series where the team with the unlimited funds winning or at least the most competeive

[Chris R]

The key to controlling costs is to limit the use of personnel on race weekend. No matter how much you invest in technology, you can only get so much done per person. You could also limit wind tunnel testing to the off season or only to league controlled wind tunnel - something like that... There are lots of possible ways to control costs without limiting technical diversity.....

[Rex Monaco]

you cant just have sponsors and manufactures determine how much to spend for developemt? Youll end up like F1, and have a boring series where the team with the unlimited funds winning or at least the most competeive

Yeah, it'd be terrible of Indycar ended up the most popular form of motor racing on the planet. We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening.

[danny123]

Yeah, it'd be terrible of Indycar ended up the most popular form of motor racing on the planet. We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening.

Yeah because F1 is hugely popular here in the states. :rolleyes:
Im not here to start a arguement with people as simple minded as you.

[DrDomm]

I don't think that cost constraints and top tiered racing go hand in hand.

Exactly! Excessive cost containment strategies are great for amateur sports. But if you want to be a professional sport, competing with MLB, NFL, NBA, PGA, etc., then you have to understand that it's expensive. People want to see a professional show. Indycar (and its sponsors/manufacturers) must spend the money to give them that. Otherwise, it will be the next victim to NASCAR.

Manufacturers are going to spend what they want, no matter how tight the rules are. In fact, I think that a rules package that really limits what you can do forces teams and manufacturers to spend ridiculous sums of money for an extra 5hp or 0.1s.

What a restricted rules package does do though, is it narrows the gap from the "haves" and the "have-nots"...which is good for the show.

There may be ways to impose "spending caps" on manufacturers in the future, but we're not there yet. I say, let this thing pick up some steam first, and then if you need to reign in the manufacturers later on...do it then. But right now, take anything you can get for a little exposure or anything that makes it look more polished.

[veeten]

Unfortunately, danny, that's where the money to race at all comes from.

Without that connection, a racing series has no chance of getting from idea to racing grid, unless you like the idea of 'socialized (or rationed) racing'. This is expected in the lower levels, like A1GP, Atlantics, or GP2, not in a major racing series.

Multiple chassis, powertrains, setups, even tire choices are part of racing as well as the teams & drivers. It's the reason why F1, ALMS/Grand Am, and even NASCAR are hugely popular, as well as the reason why CART/Champ Car & the IRL have been missing from the scene since the early part of this century. What strikes me as hilarious is that the same arguments (or opinions) that some bring about their view of Stock car racing are the very same tennets that they want to see adopted in Open Wheel.

Racing, in any aspect, is an expensive, time-consuming business, as anyone from the paddock to the press booth will tell you, but it is very rewarding in other aspects. Trying to turn a single-make spec series into a major series, as we've had several years and attempts as proof, does nothing more than to raise questions about the individuals involved and doubts about its success, especially when compared to other major series that have maintained their existance and mission.

... kind of like trying to make Beef Wellington out of ground chuck steak. Way too many people know the difference.

[danny123]

I think that the average US race fans likes to see close racing, thats why they like NASCAR, bumping is racing mentality is why they watch the racing. Recently it seems like the IRL events where they race wheel to wheel have seen a slight increase of fans at the event. Unlike the F1 fans would rather watch the ultimate technological machine win by 30 secs. Nothing new there, but doesnt NASCAR use basicially a spec chassis, just with a different manufacture on the grill. People dont seem to mind that.

[veeten]

the difference is that the teams in NASCAR build their own chassis from the ground up, and engines are designed by their specific manufacturers. Remember, the 358 c.i. engine size that they have is the celing, not the end product.

Moreso, the parts of those engines the teams have the choice of buying direct from a manufacturer-authorized team (RCR-Chevrolet, Evernham-Chrysler(Dodge), Roush-Ford, Gibbs-Toyota) or they can build them themselves, often from billet scratch, thanks to CNC machining.

same for F1, where basically the entire car is an in-house construction.

ALMS has a combinaion of constructor pre-built and manufacturer-based prototypes, with engines/powertrains from several engineering concerns. Grand Am has pre-builts for their Daytona Prototype division, with manufacturer-based powertrains (BMW, Porsche, Pontiac, Lexus, etc.).

and yet, all have not just competition, but identification. Ask why there are more team and manufacturer-based merchandise that sells like hotcakes in these series. Harder to do that with some nameless machine.

[Rex Monaco]

Yeah because F1 is hugely popular here in the states. :rolleyes:
Im not here to start a arguement with people as simple minded as you.

That's right, you jingoists prefer the hugely successful NASCAR engine formula complete with it's low tech carburators and pushrods.

[Rex Monaco]

Manufacturers are going to spend what they want, no matter how tight the rules are.

Exactly. And I think this is where a simple minded person such as myself, think that you can find cost savings (as opposed to arbitrary cost constraints).

If you adopt an engine formula from another top-tiered series, whether it be F1 or Le Mans, the development costs will be spread out much further.

[veeten]

The engine formula will be the lynchpin for the direction that the series goes.

As it stands right now, the 3.4L V8 is the closest to present and affords the largest number of operable units from engineering concerns such as Engine Developments, Ltd. (Judd), Zytec and AER, as well as Major manufacturers like Honda(Mugen), Porsche, Toyota(TRD), Daimler-Benz (Ilmor-UK) and Audi.

When the chassis design parameters are worked out for the '09/'10 season, engine plates and requipment kits will be more than available from those companies that choose to enter their chassis and powerplants as series-approved units.

[Osiris333]

To me, this process is pretty simple. Two chasis manufacturers. Allow them to make incremental changes once or twice a year. If one chasis is too dominant, then Indycar can allow the weaker chasis maker a special upgrade at some point during the season, to even things out a bit.

I also support teams making their own improvements during the season, but they must sell them to everybody who wants to buy the upgrades after three races. That way, you get innovation on a basic platform and fairly equal comptetition.