Dallara as sole supplier. [Archive]

anthonyvop

11th January 2009, 18:07

How long will Dallara be the sole supplier for the IRL? I know They are the only ones alowed to make a car for 2011, but can others like Lola, Reynard or Panoz join in for 2012?
Doubtful.

Word is that the new IRL car will be a one make series. Dallara has the inside track.

philipbain

11th January 2009, 19:21

Doubtful.

Word is that the new IRL car will be a one make series. Dallara has the inside track.

It's a shame that there isnt competition but a single chassis makes sense from the organiser's perspective, it means that the governing body can easilly make changes to improve safety or closeness of racing without having to consider how changes will affect different chassis. It also means that development can be tightly controlled / outlawed which is an effective cost control and the chassis manufacturer can also achieve greater economies of scale as they are building cars and supplying spares for the entire field which should mean greater cost controls (though interestingly there has been recent controversy in GP2 where Dalarra make all the cars that the cost of spares have increased dramatically with the new chassis).

Mark in Oshawa

11th January 2009, 21:25

Spec racing..even at 200 plus isn't as legitimate to a lot of us as having at least one or two competitors for chassis makes.

Lola and Reynard in the 90's had some great battles in CART. Penske always had his own car for years......and it added some intrigue and pro's and con's to every different track the teams were adapting to.

I will be an Indy car fan regardless because I do like the speed and type of car...but having some engineering and design alternatives for the teams would be a hell of a lot more interesting for me as a fan...

pits4me

12th January 2009, 18:39

It's a shame that there isnt competition but a single chassis makes sense from the organiser's perspective, it means that the governing body can easilly make changes to improve safety or closeness of racing without having to consider how changes will affect different chassis. It also means that development can be tightly controlled / outlawed which is an effective cost control and the chassis manufacturer can also achieve greater economies of scale as they are building cars and supplying spares for the entire field which should mean greater cost controls (though interestingly there has been recent controversy in GP2 where Dalarra make all the cars that the cost of spares have increased dramatically with the new chassis).

Why don't they require Dallara to manufacture the chassis in North America under License? That will make the cars more affordable. Eliminates shipping, import duties and trading agents on both sides of the pond. Between Swift and Elan, they could get some cost control measures in place.

Mark in Oshawa

13th January 2009, 02:53

Chamoo

13th January 2009, 15:10

It is only my opinion but I would like to see Dallara NOT build the car again. I have seen and heard about the GP2 spares from things read online, and the aesthetic goal of a good looking race car being mixed..and I think Lola, Swift/Elan or maybe someone else could do a better car. At least shop around.....

Exactly, they should look for the lowest possible price. Their goal should be to lower the amount of money it takes to run a team for a season. One of the ways of doing that is to drop the price of the car.

If Dallara cannot produce a car for approximately the same price as Elan/Panoz did the DP01, they should not be given the contract.

Dr. Krogshöj

14th January 2009, 10:38

As long as there is competition on the engine side, and some degree of development freedom for the teams, I am fine with a spec chassis. Engine competition is what makes sense commercially for car manufacturers. NASCAR chose this route for a reason. Especially in today's economic climate, spec racing is here to stay in U.S. racing.

But I would really love to see an open tender for chassis makers instead of just giving the contract to Dallara. Champ Car had an open tender before selecting Panoz in 2005. This way, the IRL could see what the different constructors have got to offer in terms of costs, the nature of racing and the car's look, and then choose the best option. Maybe Lola, Panoz or Swift would also be interested.

Alternatively, the IRL could hold a design tender and once a design is selected, another tender for manufacturing. For example, Ashmore Designs is desiging the new Gold Crown car for USAC. But the manufacturing will be done by Riley, Devin Race Cars and a new company Ashmore is putting together.

Chamoo

14th January 2009, 15:01

As long as there is competition on the engine side, and some degree of development freedom for the teams, I am fine with a spec chassis. Engine competition is what makes sense commercially for car manufacturers. NASCAR chose this route for a reason. Especially in today's economic climate, spec racing is here to stay in U.S. racing.

I don't believe that freedom development-wise is a good idea in a spec series. We have seen what happens when that is allowed with new cars, it opens up the series to be dominated by the top teams (Ganassi, Penske, AGR). In the sole year of Panoz in CC, there was no development allowed, and thanks to that, we saw Dale Coyne on the podium a few times, and we saw closer championship races.

If we are going spec racing, keep it spec and keep all the cars spec. Don't let anyone have an advantage and this way we keep the costs down (which was the original idea behind the ICS right?). This will encourage many more teams to enter if they can lower the competitive costs for teams from 8-10 million to between 5-7 million.

call_me_andrew

15th January 2009, 04:17

Don't let anyone have an advantage and this way we keep the costs down (which was the original idea behind the ICS right?).

Yes, that's a very good way to keep costs down. But if you try too hard to keep costs down, revenues go down too.

Chamoo

15th January 2009, 05:03

Yes, that's a very good way to keep costs down. But if you try too hard to keep costs down, revenues go down too.

I don't believe that to be honest. Why would the revenues go down in this situation? No one that is a fan of the ICS now is going to leave because of the new car, it will only gain us fans since many people don't like the car now, which to me says revenue goes up.

shazbot

16th January 2009, 02:38

Sadly you can rule out Panoz/Elan - they have no real design capacity anymore and a much reduced work force.

Chamoo

16th January 2009, 04:26

Sadly you can rule out Panoz/Elan - they have no real design capacity anymore and a much reduced work force.

We can rule everyone out now because they have already stated that Dallara would be the sole supplier.

call_me_andrew

16th January 2009, 04:29

I don't believe that to be honest. Why would the revenues go down in this situation? No one that is a fan of the ICS now is going to leave because of the new car, it will only gain us fans since many people don't like the car now, which to me says revenue goes up.

When you eliminate all possible developement, you become another true spec series. And I'm afraid that spec racing has become the norm (Star Mazda, GP2, A1GP, etc.). When you join that norm, you become just another face in the crowd.

Take IROC for example. They invented the spec series and gained attention because they offered something that no one else did. Now spec racing has become the norm and has run IROC out of buisness. If the IndyCar series becomes GP2.5, what would it have to make it special?

Don't say Indy.

Chamoo

16th January 2009, 04:43

Don't say Indy.

Don't worry, I would never say Indy. I am of the belief that we can't rely on one simple race to gratify us.

I don't feel that spec racing has run it's course. I also don't believe that spec racing would kill the IRL. I'm not sure if you noticed, but what we have now basically equates to spec racing. If you ask 90% of the ICS viewers if they knew there were differences from one teams cars to the others (asides from setups) they would most likely say no, and they still watch.

I feel that if we are going to a spec series, we need to have the ability to have every driver in the series a winner any given race. Of course you will still have the stronger teams and stronger drivers, but we need to give the Vitor Meira's of the series a good chance of winning everyone once in a while. Hell, one of the best stories from 2007 Champ Car was the fact Bruno Junqueira put DCR on the podium twice and almost won. Watching the underdogs perform well was good for the audience. We will never see that when teams like NHL, AGR, Penske and Ganassi are allowed to develop their chassis' at a greater speed then everyone else.

Basically, what I think I'm trying to say is that that added element of competitiveness in a truly-spec series, and the fact this is AOWR that already has a decent fan base tuned in, could out-weigh the fact that a truly-spec series has been done before.

Jag_Warrior

16th January 2009, 16:33

Why don't they require Dallara to manufacture the chassis in North America under License? That will make the cars more affordable. Eliminates shipping, import duties and trading agents on both sides of the pond. Between Swift and Elan, they could get some cost control measures in place.

Is the IRL really in a position to "require" Dallara to do that? Would Swift or Elan be interested in undertaking this project in that fashion? I don't know. Just asking.

speeddurango

18th January 2009, 00:38

philipbain

20th January 2009, 19:28

Well, the chassis makers aren't those that usually generate fan bases and attentions like the engine builders do, but that wouldn't certainly please the most hard core fans, well I can't say I'm not a hard core fan but I'm actually OK with it as long as they make it good and good for the racing.

Thats a good point actually, as that may be the case in American racing, but in F1 people tend to back chassis makers, for example, there are people that are Williams fans through many changes of engine supply, from Cosworth to Honda to Judd to Renault to Mechachrome to BMW to Cosworth to Toyota. It probably revolves around the fact that F1 teams are individual constructors (Red Bull / Torro Rosso eccepted, though in that case I often think of them as a 4 car team!) so what they race is unique to a degree, rather than bought off the shelf which seems to lack the same cache.

20th January 2009, 21:15

Thats a good point actually, as that may be the case in American racing, but in F1 people tend to back chassis makers.

Well, yes, but then the chassis manufacturers are also distinct teams in their own right (Toro Rosso/Red Bull being the exception), so the 'support' Williams garner is more due to the team rather than the chassis on its own merit.

For example, a good friend of mine who was a big fan of the 1970/1980's incarnation of Equipe Formule Un Renault Elf was happy when Williams & Benetton won titles with Renault power, but found it impossible to say he was a fan of the teams (despite his mate working for one of them!).

But when Renault returned as a full works outfit, then won two titles, he was ecstatic!

I think that the fans generally support teams and/or drivers. Engine manufacturers are supported, but more through association with favourite drivers/teams than in their own right.

Jimmy Magnusson

21st January 2009, 19:23

Is the IRL really in a position to "require" Dallara to do that? Would Swift or Elan be interested in undertaking this project in that fashion? I don't know. Just asking.

Dallara would either tell the IRL to sod off, or licence the manufacturing to a US entity, be it Swift or whoever. And they'd take a profit from that process too. This company doesn't live or die with its IndyCar programme.

I think spec racing is abhorrent. The regular punter doesn't, but I've said for a long time that that's not who racing should be for. Racing is for the real fans and the people who love doing it, and who aren't there to earn money. These people didn't come here because they wanted to run the same chassis for ten years with no innovation allowed.

EagleEye

21st January 2009, 19:40

Doubtful.

Word is that the new IRL car will be a one make series. Dallara has the inside track.

The new car will come from Dallara. Period.

garyshell

21st January 2009, 20:27

I think spec racing is abhorrent. The regular punter doesn't, but I've said for a long time that that's not who racing should be for. Racing is for the real fans and the people who love doing it, and who aren't there to earn money.

Sounds like a great business model... :rolleyes:

How do you propose to fund this?

Gary

Jimmy Magnusson

22nd January 2009, 16:10

Sounds like a great business model... :rolleyes:

How do you propose to fund this?

Gary

It worked for half a century did it not. Write a proper, sensible set of regulations that doesn't send costs skyrocketing in development races. The ones with money will always find ways to spend it, what is important is that the clever blokes with limited budget or the small-time team are also catered for. Racing needs diversity; that is why Le Mans is currently the unrivalled king of motorsport for me.

anthonyvop

22nd January 2009, 22:25

It worked for half a century did it not. Write a proper, sensible set of regulations that doesn't send costs skyrocketing in development races. The ones with money will always find ways to spend it, what is important is that the clever blokes with limited budget or the small-time team are also catered for. Racing needs diversity; that is why Le Mans is currently the unrivalled king of motorsport for me.
One of the great myths of racing was that back in the Good old days racing was just a bunch of gentlemen racers spending a little extra cash to race.

The First Race was organized by manufacturers and it has never stopped.
think of the truly great eras and cars of racing and the names like Mercedes, Auto Union(Audi), Ford, Ferrari, Porsche, Alfa Romeo, Lotus are what pops to mind.
Even the great independants like Williams had Factory back for their motors.

The Indy 500, Monoco GP and the 24 hours of Lemans all exist because they generate income.