More or less Official, new car in 2012

[Chamoo]

Wonder over to SpeedTV and check out Marshall Pruett's (enjoy his work more and more lately) article "Catching up with Tony Cotman". Lots of nice little tidbits, and Tony says the new car will be here in 2012 basically.

You know, I don't like that we will have the same car for 2 more seasons, but, I can deal with it. It has grown on me a bit.

[anthonyvop]

2012? They already race a vintage car.

[Chamoo]

2012? They already race a vintage car.

I know, people complained about the age of the Lola's in CCWS. Marshall Pruett joked that in a couple years, the Dallara's will be old enough to compete in most vintage car races.

[elan 02]

It is very clear,f this one up and say good bye to just about all your remaining fans.
I will spend my money at LB MAYBE one more year. Really,think about it!

[NickFalzone]

It is very clear,f this one up and say good bye to just about all your remaining fans.
I will spend my money at LB MAYBE one more year. Really,think about it!

In your opinion, what would "f'ing this one up" be? Something like a modified Dallara that is similarly underpowered, ugly, and not great on road courses? Or do you have another idea as to how they could screw the pooch here? I'm halfway confident that the new car will be something that most fans will like, but I'm curious as to what type of new car most fans would consider a "failure"?

What I've been hearing is that they have 2 options on the table right now:

A Panoz/Dallara style car that is along the lines of the DP01 but has some newer design principles.

A completely new style of IndyCar that shares many design elements with an ALMS car, including the cockpit.


There's a lot of discussion going on right now as far as which direction to go. Also, they are putting it out to the engine suppliers that they need a final answer by the end of the year in order to make the 2012 date.

[elan 02]

At some point the brass at the front office needs to realize that the fans want more than just one car builder. You put out more of the same old( )year after year and think we will buy in.NO It is not going to happen. I know times are tough.But It is time for somebody to make a stand if they want this show to go forward! To me this is the bottom line. We spend 5000.00 at LB to enjoy the race,but something has to improve(car) to keep me spending that money.

[call_me_andrew]

At some point the brass at the front office needs to realize that the fans want more than just one car builder. You put out more of the same old( )year after year and think we will buy in.NO It is not going to happen. I know times are tough.But It is time for somebody to make a stand if they want this show to go forward! To me this is the bottom line. We spend 5000.00 at LB to enjoy the race,but something has to improve(car) to keep me spending that money.

Yes, that's what the fans want; but the fans can't have it. A second car forces technical competition and technical competition raises costs.

[V12]

Yes, that's what the fans want; but the fans can't have it. A second car forces technical competition and technical competition raises costs.

It also gives another talking point, which unlike talk about TV ratings, attendances, business models, sponsorship activation, and Danica Patrick, is actually interesting.

Although talking about TV ratings and attendances, what Starter said just above me is spot-on.

I think the problem is the (actual) fans are pretty much a secondary concern, secondary to the Joe Public/man in the street/(insert boring over-used cliche to describe the majority of the population here), who are probably never going to be interested anyway.

It seems "diversity" is something that is aggressively celebrated in pretty much every walk of life except for that of racing cars these days.

[Chamoo]

Yes, that's what the fans want; but the fans can't have it. A second car forces technical competition and technical competition raises costs.

Not if you restrict the teams to do no R&D, just like CCWS did when they brought the Panoz in. Tony Cotman is most likely already strongly suggesting this.

One thing a second and/or third manufacturer does is drop the cost. Competition in a small market called the IRL would force the manufacturers to build the most cost-efficient car they can to draw teams into their wings.

[dataman1]

Yes, that's what the fans want; but the fans can't have it. A second car forces technical competition and technical competition raises costs.

You're right but it also brings excitement for the fans so attendance and TV viewership goes up. If that happens marketing folks have numbers to use on sponsors which brings in dollars. It's called "investing in your future". ICS can't hide their heads in the sand any longer.

[champcarray]

Being a fairly typical American, I'm always looking for what's new and what's different. I didn't like CCWS as a single-chassis series, and I don't like the IRL as a single-chassis series. Seeing the same thing year in and year out doesn't do it for me.

I enjoy racing where I can see which chassis/engine/driver/team did best at which tracks. I was primarliy an F1 fan, but was won over by CART: a welcoming attitude, fast cars, and a diversity of chassis, aero tweaks, engines, and tracks.

[vintage]

Seems like a second car will raise costs as the big teams (Penske/Ganassi) will buy both to evaluate them, and the small teams won't know what to do. I don't remember too well, but it seemed like when Champ Car and the IRL had multiple chassis, teams generally migrated to a single chassis over a relatively short period of time as that chassis turned out to be advantageous. Then, when the other manufacturer created a better mousetrap, the big teams usually could be "first movers" and the smaller teams once again became followers.

[V12]

Seems like a second car will raise costs as the big teams (Penske/Ganassi) will buy both to evaluate them, and the small teams won't know what to do. I don't remember too well, but it seemed like when Champ Car and the IRL had multiple chassis, teams generally migrated to a single chassis over a relatively short period of time as that chassis turned out to be advantageous. Then, when the other manufacturer created a better mousetrap, the big teams usually could be "first movers" and the smaller teams once again became followers.

Penske and Ganassi will always spend the most, and will invariably win more often than not, regardless of whether it's one chassis or many. That will NEVER change, the specific teams might over time as some teams build up their infrastructure and funding and others fade away, but the general principle won't.

What an alternative chassis will bring is whenever the conditions (in terms of track configuration, weather, or whatever), favour the "unfashionable" chassis (or engine, or even tyre, back in the good old days of tyre wars), you'll get an unpredictable result or at least a mild shake up of the order.

Like around 2004 when Rahal and Fernandez were able to put one over on Penske/Ganassi/AGR by virtue of the Panoz being better on the day than the more consistent Dallara.

Or Panther and Sam Hornish showing up with the Cosworth/Chevrolet and winning out of the blue (think it was Michigan '03?)

Or, even if he never won that year or threatened to, Helio Castroneves occasional giant killing in CART in 1999 with the Hogan Lola at a time when the Reynard was dominant.

The 1993 season was a thrilling back and forth contest where at some races Mansell's Newman-Haas Lola would be the car to have, at other tracks Fittipaldi and Tracy's Penskes.

As far as teams generally drifting to one package anyway, I do see your point and it happens to an extent, but the three shifts I can think of (Reynard in the late 90s, Lola in 2002, Dallara in the mid 00s), had mitigating circumstances of the main competitor either nearly going bust (Lola mid 90s), actually going bust (Reynard 2002), or focussing on another project to the detriment of that one (Panoz in the mid 00s when they won the contract to build the DP01).

At the turn of the millennium in CART, in between Lola's recovery and Reynard's demise, the field was pretty much a healthy even split. Same in IRL pretty much from the start of their new formula in 1997.

[indyracefan]

I believe it's in the series best interest to have multiple chassis for a variety of reasons.

[Wilf]

I believe it's in the series best interest to have multiple chassis for a variety of reasons.

I believe it is in the best interest of the league that each team each be given 300 million dollar budgets like the F1 boys; that way they can build their own chassis. It ain't gonna happen.

[indyracefan]

I believe it is in the best interest of the league that each team each be given 300 million dollar budgets like the F1 boys; that way they can build their own chassis. It ain't gonna happen.

Multiple, affordable chassis are realistically possible, 300 million dollars budgets are not.

[elan 02]

Somebody at the IRL has to find a way to bring back Chevy,Ford,Keep Honda,bring back Toyota,bring in the Germany cars,bring back Lola,use Elan
,Swift. I think the fans need to Demand this.Or walk!

[call_me_andrew]

Not if you restrict the teams to do no R&D, just like CCWS did when they brought the Panoz in. Tony Cotman is most likely already strongly suggesting this.

One thing a second and/or third manufacturer does is drop the cost. Competition in a small market called the IRL would force the manufacturers to build the most cost-efficient car they can to draw teams into their wings.

What we have then is one car kicking the other car's ass until everyone buys the faster car.

[garyshell]

What we have then is one car kicking the other car's ass until everyone buys the faster car.

Sort of like what has happened in the past, no? I agree, it was fun to see multiple chassis in the field but one always dominated and teams spent cubic dollars moving to that chassis. Then as another rose to the top folks scrapped the ones they had and moved to the new flavor of the day. It meant an ever increasing budget for chassis year after year, or often times mid season. In this economy it make no sense.

Gary

[indyracefan]

Sort of like what has happened in the past, no? I agree, it was fun to see multiple chassis in the field but one always dominated and teams spent cubic dollars moving to that chassis. Then as another rose to the top folks scrapped the ones they had and moved to the new flavor of the day. It meant an ever increasing budget for chassis year after year, or often times mid season. In this economy it make no sense.

Gary


The IRL's second generation Dallara's & G-Force's were fairly even in performance, costs and distribution.

[garyshell]

The IRL's second generation Dallara's & G-Force's were fairly even in performance, costs and distribution.

Then what became of the G-Force chassis? (Not challenging your comment, just wondering.)

Gary

[indyracefan]

Then what became of the G-Force chassis? (Not challenging your comment, just wondering.)

Gary

The second generation G-Force became the third generation Panoz which didn't keep pace with the Dallara. Subsequently they lost teams and R&D was cut in 2005 with only RLR running the chassis fulltime in 2006. This was about the point in time in which Panoz started the DP-01 for Champ Car.

It could be argued that Panoz developed the DP-01 due to losing the IndyCar market, or that by developing the DP-01 they fell out of favor with the ICS. By 2007 the chassis ran at Indy only with two shoe-string budget teams.


Personally I thought all three generations of G-Force/Panoz were better looking cars than the Dallara.

[V12]

I agree, from 1997-2005 there was probably little to choose between the Dallara and G-Force, some races/years the G-Force would be better, the Dallara others.

And regardless of which car you think looked better (I preferred the Dallara 2000-2002, the G-Force 2003 onwards personally), at least they did look different to the naked eye, which is why I think different chassis are even more important than having different engines.

[garyshell]

The second generation G-Force became the third generation Panoz which didn't keep pace with the Dallara. Subsequently they lost teams and R&D was cut in 2005 with only RLR running the chassis fulltime in 2006. This was about the point in time in which Panoz started the DP-01 for Champ Car.

It could be argued that Panoz developed the DP-01 due to losing the IndyCar market, or that by developing the DP-01 they fell out of favor with the ICS. By 2007 the chassis ran at Indy only with two shoe-string budget teams.


Personally I thought all three generations of G-Force/Panoz were better looking cars than the Dallara.


Doesn't that sort of prove my point about why multiple chassis are not a great idea in this economy. The G-Force and Panoz chassis were being beaten by the Dallara ones and teams had to switch. That meant those that owned the out of favor ones now had to punk down a sizable chunk of change and throw away their investment in the G-Force and Panoz ones.

Gary

[garyshell]

I agree, from 1997-2005 there was probably little to choose between the Dallara and G-Force, some races/years the G-Force would be better, the Dallara others.

If that were true than why don't we see any G-Force or Panoz chassis anymore. Even before the Dallara became the "anointed" one there were few if any of the alternates running. I would think that was due to the teams deciding the Dallara had more potential to win. No?

Gary

[V12]

If that were true than why don't we see any G-Force or Panoz chassis anymore. Even before the Dallara became the "anointed" one there were few if any of the alternates running. I would think that was due to the teams deciding the Dallara had more potential to win. No?

Gary

I said 1997-2005, not 1997-2009. Yes we've had the "same" chassis since 2003, but I'm pretty sure the 2009 Dallara differs from the 2003 version, even if they are "officially" the same. There's surely been some evolution, and it's pretty much known that Panoz "gave up" on their IndyCar after getting the Champ Car deal.

In fact in 2004 Rahal and Fernandez actively switched from the Dallara they ran in 2003 to the G-Force, so it wasn't all one-way traffic.

But by all means, if in an open formula 99% of competitors choose to run one type of car anyway, like with Dallaras in F3, or Marches back in the old CART days, then fine, that's just the way it goes. I just have a problem with it being mandated that you HAVE to run a specific car, in any form of motorsport really, let alone what is supposed to be top level.

[Chamoo]

Did the G-Force not run well once Ethanol was chosen as the fuel of choice for the IRL? I thought Ethanol ran too hot and the G-Force didn't cool effectively enough?

[V12]

Did the G-Force not run well once Ethanol was chosen as the fuel of choice for the IRL? I thought Ethanol ran too hot and the G-Force didn't cool effectively enough?

You know I hadn't thought about (or heard of) if that was the case, but thinking about it, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it was. But yeah you back up my earlier point, even if the chassis were pretty much 90% set from 2003 onwards, there were still changing regs and circumstances that needed adapting to (the 2004 change to 3 litre engines and the post-flip aero tweaks was another, even if both manufacturers were fully involved at that point). But yeah it's surely not a case that whatever the status-quo was in 2003 chassis-wise will be the same in 2009, not by a long shot.

[Lennat]

I remember reading that the 2009 car was quite a bit lighter than an older one (2003 or something...), when Sarah Fisher was comparing her two cars after getting a new one.

[ClarkFan]

Sort of like what has happened in the past, no? I agree, it was fun to see multiple chassis in the field but one always dominated and teams spent cubic dollars moving to that chassis. Then as another rose to the top folks scrapped the ones they had and moved to the new flavor of the day. It meant an ever increasing budget for chassis year after year, or often times mid season. In this economy it make no sense.

Gary
I don't think the economy is a good argument. IndyCar need to plan for the long term here. If these economic conditions hold up through 2012, the IRL is toast. Should they get ahead of the curve and shut it down now? Or plan to survive and maybe thrive in the future?

ClarkFan

[NickFalzone]

I don't think the economy is a good argument. IndyCar need to plan for the long term here. If these economic conditions hold up through 2012, the IRL is toast. Should they get ahead of the curve and shut it down now? Or plan to survive and maybe thrive in the future?

ClarkFan

I think your underestimate how long the IRL could survive in mediocrity.

You're right that now is the time, particularly with the additional Izod money (and heck the VS 6 mill a yr aint nothing). On the other hand, they could very well keep things at a mediocre level, enjoy the additional cash flow, and let the league stabilize into something moderately profitable.

Or instead, they could place their bets on high end equipment and expensive marketing, and hope for the best.

My guess is they'll do something in between.

[gofastandwynn]

You know, I had forgotten that. But I believe you're correct. There were cooling issues with the ethanol fuel. Several blown motors if I recall correctly.
No, that wouldn't be correct because by the time ethanol switch was made in 2007 all of the full season cars were Dallaras.

I remember reading on TSO that some of the teams would complain about the shotty work done on the Panoz, with the cited example being that if you ordered a new side pod form Dallara it would bolt right in place, where as with the Panoz it would usually not fit and one would have to sand down the edges and corners to make it fit.

Now, In My Opinon, when you actuall look at the accidents where there were major injuries, the majority of them were in the Panoz over the Dallara. Paul Dana & Tony Renna, Bruno at Indy 2005, Giaffone's broken hip at Kansas 2003, Rice at Indy 2005, Briscoe at Chicago 2005. And having seen Pauls post crash photos of the car. no car made of carbon fiber should have completely collapsed around the driver like that.

[Chamoo]

No, that wouldn't be correct because by the time ethanol switch was made in 2007 all of the full season cars were Dallaras.

They made the move to 100% Ethanol in 2007, but they ran one or two years prior to that with E10 or E20.

[call_me_andrew]

Did the G-Force not run well once Ethanol was chosen as the fuel of choice for the IRL? I thought Ethanol ran too hot and the G-Force didn't cool effectively enough?

The change in fuel only effected the engines, not the chassis. The only change that would have forced on the chassis was changing from a 35 to 22 gallon tank.

[indyracefan]

If that were true than why don't we see any G-Force or Panoz chassis anymore. Even before the Dallara became the "anointed" one there were few if any of the alternates running. I would think that was due to the teams deciding the Dallara had more potential to win. No?

Gary

As already stated, Panoz didn't keep pace in R&D and fell behind. That lead to no more updates or factory support and the chassis became uncompetitive so teams dropped the Panoz. Ganassi and Rahal-Letterman were two teams that loyally campaigned the chassis from 2003 through '05 & '06 respectively. Penske used a Panoz chassis for deFerran at Indy, Texas and California in '03. So for 7 years both chassis ran competitively on the track and in costs.

[dataman1]

If the economy is a factor in teams being able to afford new cars, then the car manufacter is not selling cars. If he is not selling cars he is not buying carbon fiber or other pieces/parts to build new cars, and so on....

If all these builders and suppliers are not selling new product would they not be willing to give better pricing during a down economy to increase their sales? Is that not what our passenger car industry is doing now?

When the economy is down it is a buyers market in most instances. So how can the league get some cash to invest in their future by buying new cars and "lease to own" them to the teams. Oh wait a minute they just got new cash didn't they. How they choose to spend it will decide their destiny. From the layoffs reported of late, it looks like people on the inside won't be getting any of it.

Food for thought.

[CCWS77]

But by all means, if in an open formula 99% of competitors choose to run one type of car anyway, like with Dallaras in F3, or Marches back in the old CART days, then fine, that's just the way it goes. I just have a problem with it being mandated that you HAVE to run a specific car, in any form of motorsport really, let alone what is supposed to be top level.

Realistically though, don't you have it backwards? What I mean is, it is all well and good to have multiple competing chassis when the finances and economic situation are such that teams can pick whichever they think is best and compete with it. If you start introducing multiple chassis when you know most teams can not afford the best one, well you have just gone and actually made the racing worse by locking many teams into substandard equipment.

I have a problem with the idea that rules dictating what equipment can be used are evil, but leaving only money to determine it is somehow better. how about rules which actually highlight the skill of the team?

The problem of not updating a racing car for many years is a different problem then not having multiple cars out there.

[chuck34]

how about rules which actually highlight the skill of the team?


You don't think fund raising is a team skill?

Funds generally flow to teams that prove they can do things well. Let's take a hypothetical situation. There are two chassis in the IRL now, we'll call them A and B. Ganassi and Penske have chassis A, and are kicking everyone's butts with it. Everyone else has chassis B. Now let's say Sarah Fisher's team hits on something with chassis B and they start beating most of the other teams with chassis B. Don't you think that sponsors will start to take notice of her team? Now maybe she has enough cash to go out and buy chassis A, and really start competing with Ganassi and Penske. But in the current system, when there are really no areas of the car/engine that can be eploited, her team really has no opportunity to shine and attract more sponsors. Does that make any sense? I know it's sort of a chicken and an egg type of deal.

To put it another way ... Right now the rules in the IRL are stifeling innovation, and innnovation is what can allow a team to stand out. Without being allowed to stand out (success/failure motives), there is no way that the status quo will ever change.

Open up the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. But the little guy has a chance to beat them every now and then.

Close down the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. And the little guy will pretty much never have a chance to beat them.

At least that's the way I see it.

[garyshell]

But in the current system, when there are really no areas of the car/engine that can be eploited, her team really has no opportunity to shine and attract more sponsors.

Then how do you explain the disparity between the top two teams and everyone else?


To put it another way ... Right now the rules in the IRL are stifeling innovation, and innnovation is what can allow a team to stand out. Without being allowed to stand out (success/failure motives), there is no way that the status quo will ever change.

Open up the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. But the little guy has a chance to beat them every now and then.

Close down the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. And the little guy will pretty much never have a chance to beat them.

At least that's the way I see it.

With the rules now, what are the big teams spending their money on that puts them on top? There hase to be some "magic pixie dust" or innovation that keeps them out front.

Gary

[indyracefan]

Then how do you explain the disparity between the top two teams and everyone else?

Gary

Talent & experience.

[chuck34]

Then how do you explain the disparity between the top two teams and everyone else?

That may have been worded poorly. I should have said very few areas to be exploited. They spend hours upon hours at the wind tunnel finding the very minor tweeks that make them stand out. The little stuff is really hard to find and therefore expensive. The big stuff is a bit "easier" and less expensive. I'd bet if someone were to allow you to look at the set-up sheets for a Penske and a Fisher car, there would be relativly little to no difference. It's all the fine details that make the difference, and details are expensive.


With the rules now, what are the big teams spending their money on that puts them on top? There hase to be some "magic pixie dust" or innovation that keeps them out front.

Gary

Like I said before, hours upon hours in the windtunnels finding those little ounces of drag to shave off.

Anyway, it's not a perfect way to look at it by any means. I suppose my whole point was that the "Big Teams" are going to win no matter what. It just seems to me that if you open up the rules a bit, you may have the "Little Teams" stumble upon something that works every now and then. And to me that is exciting.

Look at F1 this year. They changed the rules by a ton, and (at least at the start of the year) the "natural order" of things was upside down.

[V12]

Exactly - if there was ever any sort of "experiment" to see how a spec chassis could level the playing field and make everyone competitive, you can pretty much mark that with a giant FAIL, and not just in IndyCar. GP2, post-1996 F3000, all have/had their "powerhouse" teams that won regardless.

IndyCar has been more dominated by Penske/Ganassi now (in terms of sustained dominance, just just a one-off season like 1994) than at any time in IndyCar/CART's open-formula history. Why? Because they know their way around the age old Dallara-Honda/Firestone package better than anyone else, and everyone else is forever playing catchup, VERY slowly, because there's not much they can do.

I completely agree with chuck34's sentiments. If a smaller team is allowed to run something a bit different, and they hit on something good, it increases the chance of an upset.

Spec chassis are not some magical bullet that close up the field or cut costs. Costs can be kept in check in other ways, for instance price capped chassis (i.e. anyone can design and build a car, but they must make it available to any team that wants one, for a maximum price).

And if you want a really close field with everyone with a chance of winning then you need a large number of teams of a similar competence, the closest US open wheel racing had to that, in my living memory, was the mid-to-late-90s CART era when we had Reynards, Lolas, Swifts, Penskes, Eagles, Hondas, Mercedes, Toyota, Fords, Goodyears and Firestones all on track, at the same time.

[CCWS77]

You don't think fund raising is a team skill?

Fund raising is most definitely a real world skill. It is hardly something that you should build grandstands and TV coverage so fans can watch! Why would you ever consider this part of the actual sports experience. It is part of the administration which should have as little effect on the competition as possible.


To put it another way ... Right now the rules in the IRL are stifeling innovation, and innovation is what can allow a team to stand out. Without being allowed to stand out (success/failure motives), there is no way that the status quo will ever change. Opening rules in terms of what teams are allowed to do is fine by me. you are correct, maybe some skilled but underbudget teams will stand out. But rules that open what teams are allowed to do with what they have is a totally different concept then rules about how much resources teams are allowed to expend or what equipment can be used. If you "open" that, you have actually locked in a hierarchy of spending more to do better. That doesn't unlock the innovation or perceived openness you are advocating for at all.

For example say 300 out of 1000 wings positions might be illegal in an IRL race. If you are in a situation where the allowed settings are already somewhat less then what the car can theoretically do, what is the point of adding more equipment or another chassis with even more possible settings? It is a totally pointless excorcise that hasn't opened anthing or created more innovation, if anything it might lock in an advantage for some. The limiting factor was already one of rules and procedures, you can't solve that by adding various equipment. You risk making the disparities due solely to resources (and not skill) actually worse.


Exactly - if there was ever any sort of "experiment" to see how a spec chassis could level the playing field and make everyone competitive, you can pretty much mark that with a giant FAIL, and not just in IndyCar.
What a terrible misconception to assume equal equipment means equal skill, equal competition and equal outcomes. Unfortunately we see exactly the opposite. Spec equipment reveals the consistently best teams and drivers. Disparate equipment and level of resources causes sanctioning bodies to jerry rig rules to artificially equalize outcome.
SEE ALSO: Grand AM
....where such concepts are not really even hidden....
never mind which series' might do similar behind closed doors




Spec chassis are not some magical bullet that close up the field or cut costs. Costs can be kept in check in other ways, for instance price capped chassis (i.e. anyone can design and build a car, but they must make it available to any team that wants one, for a maximum price).I have no problem with such interesting ideas. Who was advocating for only a SPEC chassis? This line of discussion occurred because of the faulty notion that allowing equipment that only the best teams can afford is somehow good. That is what really happens....not the novel ideas you suggest. And as long as that is true, adding multiple chassis (or engines) does nothing to improve the racing. If you make them equally affordable and available then I have no problem at all and will be supporting it 100%. but that isn't reality as exists or even as typically advocated when people call for open rules. More typically there will be a call to artificially equate the performance in some way. Or some others might just argue a complete disparity based on finances is fine. For evidence, see Chuck above advocating that fund-raising is a vital racing skill.

[chuck34]

Fund raising is most definitely a real world skill. It is hardly something that you should build grandstands and TV coverage so fans can watch! Why would you ever consider this part of the actual sports experience. It is part of the administration which should have as little effect on the competition as possible.

I never said that fund raising was a spectator sport. But you can not seriously argue that fund raising is not part of this sport. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just a big part. And it's a part of the sport that is unlikely to ever go away, no matter what rules are in place. Unless you go to an IROC type system, but even then you have to pay your crews, etc., etc. Bottom line, money makes the world go 'round.


Opening rules in terms of what teams are allowed to do is fine by me. you are correct, maybe some skilled but underbudget teams will stand out. But rules that open what teams are allowed to do with what they have is a totally different concept then rules about how much resources teams are allowed to expend or what equipment can be used. If you "open" that, you have actually locked in a hierarchy of spending more to do better. That doesn't unlock the innovation or perceived openness you are advocating for at all.

I agree that opening up rules with the current chassis will help quite a bit, and I've been an advocate of that for quite some time. Perfect example is Ed Carpenter at Kentucky. However, now everything has pretty well settled out again.

If you don't think that there is a spending hierarchy currently locked in to the IRL then you must be watching something different than I am. And if you don't think that there is a spending hierarchy in EVERY form of racing that is fairly well entrenched then you aren't paying attention. Actually the one place that I think it could be argued there wasn't much of a spending hierarchy was in F1 this year, and that has the highest level of technology and "open-ness". But even there they are spending cubic dollars. So it still comes back to my point that fund raising is an integral part of the sport, a not very glamours part, but a very vital one.


For example say 300 out of 1000 wings positions might be illegal in an IRL race. If you are in a situation where the allowed settings are already somewhat less then what the car can theoretically do, what is the point of adding more equipment or another chassis with even more possible settings? It is a totally pointless excorcise that hasn't opened anthing or created more innovation, if anything it might lock in an advantage for some. The limiting factor was already one of rules and procedures, you can't solve that by adding various equipment. You risk making the disparities due solely to resources (and not skill) actually worse.

I would agree that the rules also need to be opened up along with the new chassis, or there isn't much point to it. I'm not sure what your last sentence there is getting at?


What a terrible misconception to assume equal equipment means equal skill, equal competition and equal outcomes. Unfortunately we see exactly the opposite. Spec equipment reveals the consistently best teams and drivers. Disparate equipment and level of resources causes sanctioning bodies to jerry rig rules to artificially equalize outcome.
SEE ALSO: Grand AM
....where such concepts are not really even hidden....
never mind which series' might do similar behind closed doors

I'm not sure what you are getting at there. Grand-Am has different chassis and different engines although they are fairly limited in their designs. But they have arguably the best racing out there and it's really pretty inexpensive to race in that series. That would seem to be an argument for MORE chassis/engine competition, which appears to be what you are arguing against???


I have no problem with such interesting ideas. Who was advocating for only a SPEC chassis? This line of discussion occurred because of the faulty notion that allowing equipment that only the best teams can afford is somehow good. That is what really happens....not the novel ideas you suggest. And as long as that is true, adding multiple chassis (or engines) does nothing to improve the racing. If you make them equally affordable and available then I have no problem at all and will be supporting it 100%. but that isn't reality as exists or even as typically advocated when people call for open rules. More typically there will be a call to artificially equate the performance in some way. Or some others might just argue a complete disparity based on finances is fine. For evidence, see Chuck above advocating that fund-raising is a vital racing skill.

I'm not arguing "a complete disparity based on finances is fine". But it is reality. And it will be no matter what rules you put in place. The IRL is a spec series, and you seem to be of the opinion that that somehow takes money out of things. Let's look at that for a second. Who wins pretty much all the races? Penske and Ganassi. Who has all the money? Penske and Ganassi. So how exactly does having a spec chassis and a spec engine make things more equal, or take money out of it?

Again let's look at F1. Who has all the money there? Toyota, Ferrari, BMW. How did those teams do this year? Not so good. Is F1 a spec series? Far from it. So tell me again how having a spec chassis and a spec engine makes things more equal.

[CCWS77]

If you don't think that there is a spending hierarchy currently locked in to the IRL then you must be watching something different than I am. And if you don't think that there is a spending hierarchy in EVERY form of racing that is fairly well entrenched then you aren't paying attention.I'm not arguing it doesn't exist. I'm complaining nobody tries to solve it. Or advocates things which make it worse.

Finance is a tremendous part of the Olympics or the Super Bowl as well. Do fans tolerate finances playing a major part in what happens out on the field? If your response is racing is different, well maybe there is the reason racing is in the crapper, at least in North America.



I would agree that the rules also need to be opened up along with the new chassis, or there isn't much point to it. I'm not sure what your last sentence there is getting at? Updating old equipment is a different thing that is necessary no matter what. The point of multiple chassis is to add more options and diversity. Why bother with that if the options are already restricted in other ways and the teams can't possibly use what they already have to its potential?



I'm not sure what you are getting at there. Grand-Am has different chassis and different engines although they are fairly limited in their designs. But they have arguably the best racing out there and it's really pretty inexpensive to race in that series. That would seem to be an argument for MORE chassis/engine competition, which appears to be what you are arguing against???
I'm neither arguing for or against chassis/engine competition. I'm arguing against the make it up as you go along lack of integrity rules, which often accompany that. I'm pointing out the engine/chassis competition issue is almost totally irrelevant to that actual real issue. To the extent that people are annoyingly convinced that it fixes something in this reguard and ignore the real issues, that makes me against it. That is all.


So tell me again how having a spec chassis and a spec engine makes things more equal.I have not been arguing to make things more equal. What is missing is the display of talent, skill, ingenuity and competition in an environment and ruleset with integrity and fairness. I have never advocated the point is to make things equal, this is a false notion which several of you that are reflexively against a SPEC car are stuck on. Things are most equal in Grand AM, where the lack of integrity means rules are constantly bent and changed specifically in order to produce an outcome that is equal. That is what I am against. It is to bad that problem is continually caused by fans who insist on having

A)disparate equipment, resources finances, multiple chassis, multiple engines all provide a better mechanical show

or

B)an equivalent, close, bumper to bumper or headline grabbing outcome


those lead to

C)rule bending, backroom deals, politics and lack of integrity needed to combine A & B into a coherent show.

I don't care about either A or B. I care that people stick their heads in the sand about C arguing for A & B. As if there is somehow no relation! Just give us the shiny new equipment and I guess we should be so enchanted we will never notice C

[nigelred5]

I don't care what series you name, the introduction of a common chassis in every instance I can think of has resulted in progressively lower TV ratings after the packages were standardized. Even the average fan can see what happens with spec racing.

[NickFalzone]

Haven't listened to the whole show yet, but John Lewis from the IRL was on Trackside radio tonight discussing the new car. He said that they're now in serious discussions with 3 manufacturers on the chassis design, from a cost and construction standpoint. He said that all of the options are fairly similar, and that it will look more high tech than you might expect, and viewers may not immediately recognize it as an IndyCar. Personally I'm ok with that, since no one is watching IndyCar anyway, they might as well put something else out there that looks cool and will maybe get in some more casual viewers to the series. Starts around the 24 minute mark:

http://www.1070thefan.com/trackside/podcast.aspx

Also says that they hope to do a test of the new car design late next season, even if the engine design is still a work in progress from the 2-3 manufacturers.

[chuck34]

CCWS77, about your argument for opening up the current rules, I'm with you 100%. That is where things should start, today, it costs nothing. Let's do it and see where it gets us.

Where I have to disagree with you is your notion that ANYTHING could EVER be done to get money and/or politics out of racing. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. I can't see any scenario where you get those two things out of racing. Spec series won't do it, and an open series won't do it.

So since you'll never be able to get rid of money and politics, why not embrace them and open the series up? The fans want it, and the crews want it, and I would bet that the drivers want it. I KNOW the crews and drivers live off of competition. What better competition than beating a guy with "better" equipment? What better motivation to work harder than beating a guy with "better" equipment? What better drama/spectical for the fan than watching the little guy beat a guy with "better" equipment?

[SarahFan]

http://www.indystar.com/article/200...sylvania-tunnel

Apparently the radical chassis design is from Ben Bowlby, formerly Lola's chief designer and now part of Ganassi. It looks like a cross between a sports car and a motorcycle and is sleek and new age.

Ganassi, Michael Andretti, and Tony George at least are all pushing for this design.

Dallara is the other chassis being considered and would be an evolution of the existing design.

Here's some interesting stuff thoughts from Bowlby in Racecar Engineering about what he'd want a new car to be. Sounds like it'd be lightweight, fuel efficient, and with many areas on the car to tweak.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/...apolis-500.html

Quote:
Former Lola chief designer, now with Target Chip Ganassi Racing, Ben Bowlby, points out the rules have been about 'forcing inefficiency on cars' since the early 1980s. 'The cars would go too fast if we didn't have numerous air brakes bolted on, such as oversized rain lights and wickers on the rear wing end plates. We are burning a load of fuel we don't need to. Nobody is looking at us and saying, "here is a forward thinking series."'

Indianapolis Motor Speedway was initially built in 1909 as a proving ground and Bowlby reckons it should still reflect this today. The IRL has already intimated that it may change from ethanol to a more road-relevant fuel, but Bowlby says perhaps it should go further and not mandate any one fuel in particular. 'The amount of fuel should be given to the teams by its calorific value, then we should get on with it. We should certainly see some interesting stuff then.' He also points out that there are 'some wider concepts that should be taken into account' and that Indianapolis should be poised to capitalise on these.

'Formula 1 has too much inertia, but the IRL could do something newsworthy that would make engineers like me stick around.' As Bowlby's colleague at Ganassi, Julian Robertson, says, 'Ben and I are just itching to do a 'kick-ass' Indy car. We both have a pretty good idea of what you need to do to make cars race well. I keep telling Les we ought to design the car for him! What I would like to see is a lightweight engine and a lightweight car - you could do something awesome that is unlike any racecar ever seen before.' Robertson mentions the two design studies commissioned by the IRL, although it has to be said that the students involved, not having engineering backgrounds, produced mainly unworkable ideas.

'I would like to see everything swing back to a point where there were a lot more areas on the car that you could change to gain an advantage. Everything is currently clamped down, partly for reasons of cost, partly to keep the smaller cars competitive. Indy Car needs to be back driven by technology.





^above was links and post from another poster at another forum

[chuck34]

Ken, neither of those links work for me. They both go to the IndyStar and Racecar-engineering, but then can't find the story???

But I LOVE the idea of giving the teams X amount of fuel, based on it's energy potential, and then letting them "go at it". I've been saying that for some time now. I think it would go a long way to giving fans, engineers and drivers something to do (for lack of a better word).

[SarahFan]

Ken, neither of those links work for me. They both go to the IndyStar and Racecar-engineering, but then can't find the story???

But I LOVE the idea of giving the teams X amount of fuel, based on it's energy potential, and then letting them "go at it". I've been saying that for some time now. I think it would go a long way to giving fans, engineers and drivers something to do (for lack of a better word).

i just cut and pasted someones elses post becuase I though it was relevant to this discussion.... I'll try and repaste the links

[SarahFan]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20091120/SPORTS01/911200367/1052/SPORTS01/Next-Indy-car-may-be-lurking-in-a-Pennsylvania-tunnel

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/other/386862/the-future-of-indycar-and-the-indianapolis-500.html

[garyshell]

In the RaceCar Engineering video I captured one image. That one REALLY resonated with me.

http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad39/scuderiaconchiglia/IndyCapture.jpg

Gary

[chuck34]

In the RaceCar Engineering video I captured one image. That one REALLY resonated with me.

http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad39/scuderiaconchiglia/IndyCapture.jpg

Gary

At first look I kind of like that one too. Not sure what Wolverene is doing there though?

[NickFalzone]

I think that design is pretty cool. What I like about it is that the car looks extremely lightweight and nimble, whereas the current Dallara simply looks like a clunker with its flat lines and thick side paneling. I don't know what the latest state of the art is in chassis/body design, but looking at F1 I imagine that this "wolverine" style is possible in theory for a fast and safe racecar. And it still looks like an "indycar" to me.

[veeten]

In the RaceCar Engineering video I captured one image. That one REALLY resonated with me.

http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad39/scuderiaconchiglia/IndyCapture.jpg

Gary

It just screams 'Gurney-Westlake, circa 2020'. :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nice car....I would love to see it in reality.

We need mulitiple manufacturers and more room for the engineers to play. In the long run, the majority of fans i think WANT that variety and as Chuck pointed out, it allows teams to stumble onto new ideas, setups and mods.

As it was pointed out in the above posts ( Chuck again?) if you look at the radical redesign in f1, it allowed the status quo to be upset, and it was one of the more unpredictable years in f1.

Gary's concern about costs make sense EXCEPT that sort of thinking has run the IRL for the last decade and look how much it hasn't helped. IN theory cost contaiment is good...but th reality is the good teams still win, and have more money to do the little things to stay on top. Give the teams bigger boxes to work with , and multiple choices, and I think you have better racing.

The spec chassis series wont work; but you need tight rules then look at what Grand AM has. They have not enough room in the box in my opinion but they are close on speed, yet in Grand-Am's case you see multiple chassis winning over the year, and some chassis do better on some tracks than others.

[garyshell]

It just screams 'Gurney-Westlake, circa 2020'. :D


That was PRECISELY what came to mind when I saw it!

Gary

[veeten]

The real reason as to why the sport has gone down such a miserable road for these long years is that it had become, basically, 'Corporate Racing'.

This is what happens when you let corporations decide and dictate how your sport will be run, you end up with a spec/single make series.

Looking back on how the sport was run, you had people that had greasy hands and gasoline in their blood in charge, and knew how to establish rules that would not be subborned for the pirsuit of money or power. The problems began when the 'Power Suits & Ties' set with their MBA's got involved and totally changed the way the sport existed. Now, as I said earlier, witness the results.

It can be better,... by opening the regs /w tighter measurements, setting base rules for engine allowments that will provide for more engineering concerns, as well as manufacturers, to compete, and allowing teams to build their own chassis, just like it used to be, you can be suprised just how it can improve the situation.

Some will cry that this may cost money,... Racing always costs money, that's just the nature of the beast. Get over it. Better to have it in the spirit of true competition than in some equal outcomes-based farce that no one will take seriously, except those who believe that the main objective is to sell you something.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The real reason as to why the sport has gone down such a miserable road for these long years is that it had become, basically, 'Corporate Racing'.

This is what happens when you let corporations decide and dictate how your sport will be run, you end up with a spec/single make series.

Looking back on how the sport was run, you had people that had greasy hands and gasoline in their blood in charge, and knew how to establish rules that would not be subborned for the pirsuit of money or power. The problems began when the 'Power Suits & Ties' set with their MBA's got involved and totally changed the way the sport existed. Now, as I said earlier, witness the results.

It can be better,... by opening the regs /w tighter measurements, setting base rules for engine allowments that will provide for more engineering concerns, as well as manufacturers, to compete, and allowing teams to build their own chassis, just like it used to be, you can be suprised just how it can improve the situation.

Some will cry that this may cost money,... Racing always costs money, that's just the nature of the beast. Get over it. Better to have it in the spirit of true competition than in some equal outcomes-based farce that no one will take seriously, except those who believe that the main objective is to sell you something.

Cant disagree with anything you said the really. The last paragraph is all the justification the sport needs for multiple choices in terms of chassis, engines and perhaps even tire choices.

[garyshell]

The real reason as to why the sport has gone down such a miserable road for these long years is that it had become, basically, 'Corporate Racing'.

This is what happens when you let corporations decide and dictate how your sport will be run, you end up with a spec/single make series.

Looking back on how the sport was run, you had people that had greasy hands and gasoline in their blood in charge, and knew how to establish rules that would not be subborned for the pirsuit of money or power. The problems began when the 'Power Suits & Ties' set with their MBA's got involved and totally changed the way the sport existed. Now, as I said earlier, witness the results.

It can be better,... by opening the regs /w tighter measurements, setting base rules for engine allowments that will provide for more engineering concerns, as well as manufacturers, to compete, and allowing teams to build their own chassis, just like it used to be, you can be suprised just how it can improve the situation.

Some will cry that this may cost money,... Racing always costs money, that's just the nature of the beast. Get over it.

And the more money it costs the more it will put it in the control of the very "Corporate Racing" folks you rail against. The days of the gentlemen racers is long gone. Get over it. Who is going to pay for these sort of races if it's not the corporate interests? The team owners aren't. The spectators aren't. The TV networks aren't.


Better to have it in the spirit of true competition than in some equal outcomes-based farce that no one will take seriously, except those who believe that the main objective is to sell you something.

I am not convinced that the concept of equal outcomes is such a farce. Some of the best RACING I ever saw was the LeCar series many years ago. The cars were about as equal as you could get and the racing was intense, spirited and a joy to watch. This argument all comes down to ones definition of what makes for a good race. For some, and I suspect you are among those, it is a matter of the battle of the fastest cars. For others, me among them, it is about the fastest drivers. I have little interest in the ever escalating engineering battle and its associated ever escalating costs. I'd be perfectly happy with the return of the IROC in it's original form.

Gary

[chuck34]

And the more money it costs the more it will put it in the control of the very "Corporate Racing" folks you rail against. The days of the gentlemen racers is long gone. Get over it. Who is going to pay for these sort of races if it's not the corporate interests? The team owners aren't. The spectators aren't. The TV networks aren't.



I am not convinced that the concept of equal outcomes is such a farce. Some of the best RACING I ever saw was the LeCar series many years ago. The cars were about as equal as you could get and the racing was intense, spirited and a joy to watch. This argument all comes down to ones definition of what makes for a good race. For some, and I suspect you are among those, it is a matter of the battle of the fastest cars. For others, me among them, it is about the fastest drivers. I have little interest in the ever escalating engineering battle and its associated ever escalating costs. I'd be perfectly happy with the return of the IROC in it's original form.

Gary

And exactly where is IROC now? That is why I can not agree with your position, as much as parts of it do make sense. The spec racing, no money involved, let's let the racers decide model has been tried, and sadly failed. Fans need something more. They are smarter than most give them credit for. I hate to keep going back to this but in F1 the fans know that driver X is good even though he is in the "bad" Y car. It helps the debate, and drives interest.

[call_me_andrew]

And exactly where is IROC now? That is why I can not agree with your position, as much as parts of it do make sense. The spec racing, no money involved, let's let the racers decide model has been tried, and sadly failed. Fans need something more. They are smarter than most give them credit for. I hate to keep going back to this but in F1 the fans know that driver X is good even though he is in the "bad" Y car. It helps the debate, and drives interest.

Well everyone else stole IROC's buisness model so it was left without a leg to stand on.

And if X is as good as you claim him to be, he wouldn't be driving a Y.

[Jag_Warrior]

And if X is as good as you claim him to be, he wouldn't be driving a Y.

The X's who show flashes of brilliance don't stick with the Y's for long though: Senna & Lotus, Schumacher & Jordan, Alonso & Minardi, etc.

[jimispeed]

Shoulda Coulda Woulda.......

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/imageBank/cache/n/n703872327_1095677_7770.jpg_e_f8d2d46a6cfd8a9342d6 1ea7aa5e128b.jpg

Still Coulda......

Although the capture that Garyshell put up is a nice blast from the past/future!!

[garyshell]

And exactly where is IROC now? That is why I can not agree with your position, as much as parts of it do make sense. The spec racing, no money involved, let's let the racers decide model has been tried, and sadly failed. Fans need something more. They are smarter than most give them credit for. I hate to keep going back to this but in F1 the fans know that driver X is good even though he is in the "bad" Y car. It helps the debate, and drives interest.


As for where the IROC is now, it made a pact with the devil, aka the France Family. If the concept of spec racing is so flawed, explain the "Car of Tomorrow" to me.

Gary

[shazbot]

Shoulda Coulda Woulda.......

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/imageBank/cache/n/n703872327_1095677_7770.jpg_e_f8d2d46a6cfd8a9342d6 1ea7aa5e128b.jpg

Still Coulda......

Although the capture that Garyshell put up is a nice blast from the past/future!!

I'm supprised no one is interested in this photo. This is the DP-01 Champ Car mocked up with Panoz IRL bodywork. This was how close the two sides came to a reconciliation.

As far as "still Coulda" I'm afraid not a chance.

[chuck34]

As for where the IROC is now, it made a pact with the devil, aka the France Family. If the concept of spec racing is so flawed, explain the "Car of Tomorrow" to me.

Gary

Declining TV ratings, empty seats in the stands, declining fan interests, rumblings from manufacturers, etc. Explain that.

[veeten]

As for where the IROC is now, it made a pact with the devil, aka the France Family. If the concept of spec racing is so flawed, explain the "Car of Tomorrow" to me.

Gary

Simple... While the regs have maximums and minimums in engine size, chassis builds, and other measurements, the teams select and build their own cars to be raced in the series. The manufacturers are only providers, not the deciders, which allows for the 'diversity' in the field. It is up to the teams & drivers to decide the overall champion, which is as it should be.

The same also follows in Formula 1, where the FIA makes the rules, the manufacturers provide the materials, the teams build and run the cars, and the drivers race for points and championships.

et tu WRC, ALMS/LMS/Grand Am, BTCC/WTCC/Speed WC, etc...

The difference between 'diversity' and 'sameness' is that fans and non-fans alike will quickly tire of the latter before they will the former, especially if that series is supposed to be a top-level championship, not a one-make junior or niche series. This is what you have ISC, Atlantics, GP2, Star Mazda and others for, a training ground for what it considered 'the next level'.

[garyshell]

Let me be perfectly clear about this, personally I'd love to see multiple engines and multiple chassis in the series. But I am still not convinced that it is a REQUIREMENT for the series to be a success outside the scope of the gearheads like those of us here. I am still convinced that to Jane and John Doe, what would make the series successful is to see the drivers actually drive the cars, low downforce, high HP, hard tires with cockpit visibility by the fans (without putting undo risk on the drivers).

I still think the vast majority of folks come to see the drivers drive the cars, they don't come to see the cars driven by the drivers. I think we have lost sight of that fact. That's not to say there isn't a certain hard core cadre of gearheads who come for both. But I don't think we are a large enough audience to be an influence on this.

Gary

[garyshell]

The difference between 'diversity' and 'sameness' is that fans and non-fans alike will quickly tire of the latter before they will the former...

The gear head fans? Yes. The rest? I think you are dead wrong. If the racing is exciting and on any given weekend any number of folks could win (aka driver diversity), I think the rest of the fans would hardly notice if there was diversity in the mechanicals under the drivers butts.

Gary

[indyracefan]

Let me be perfectly clear about this, personally I'd love to see multiple engines and multiple chassis in the series. But I am still not convinced that it is a REQUIREMENT for the series to be a success outside the scope of the gearheads like those of us here. I am still convinced that to Jane and John Doe, what would make the series successful is to see the drivers actually drive the cars, low downforce, high HP, hard tires with cockpit visibility by the fans (without putting undo risk on the drivers).

I still think the vast majority of folks come to see the drivers drive the cars, they don't come to see the cars driven by the drivers. I think we have lost sight of that fact. That's not to say there isn't a certain hard core cadre of gearheads who come for both. But I don't think we are a large enough audience to be an influence on this.

Gary


I completely understand, and did many posts ago it's just that I don't agree with you.

[NickFalzone]

The gear head fans? Yes. The rest? I think you are dead wrong. If the racing is exciting and on any given weekend any number of folks could win (aka driver diversity), I think the rest of the fans would hardly notice if there was diversity in the mechanicals under the drivers butts.

Gary

Gary, I mostly agree with this. There's this underlying assumption that NASCAR fans are different from IRL fans. That the IRL is going after a different group of people than NASCAR. I don't think so. The entertainment value that NASCAR provides, along with it's huge marketing power, makes it a must-see sports event for a large number of fans each weekend. The IRL could provide this, to a similar crowd, but they do not. If the IRL's on track product and marketing was on par with NASCAR (and it occasionally is, but rarely) then it would be getting the same big ratings. It's not some random coincidence that many more people watch NASCAR than the IRL, and have done so for quite a long time. If the IRL wants to get back to at least CART level popularity, it needs a huge infusion of cash. The IZOD deal is a start in that direction. And it needs to make significant changes to the on-track product, including the introduction of the new car. And it needs to heavily market its drivers, and needs more American drivers. But having multiple car makes? I don't think that's crucial to its popularity. Look at Grand Am, similar type of racing but with multiple makes, and the fan base is at the IRL level ratings-wise, and well below the IRL attendance-wise. Same with ALMS. The technology is nice, but it's only a small part of the bigger picture goals that the IRL needs to accomplish to gain back a decent fanbase.

[chuck34]

Gary, I mostly agree with this. There's this underlying assumption that NASCAR fans are different from IRL fans. That the IRL is going after a different group of people than NASCAR. I don't think so. The entertainment value that NASCAR provides, along with it's huge marketing power, makes it a must-see sports event for a large number of fans each weekend. The IRL could provide this, to a similar crowd, but they do not. If the IRL's on track product and marketing was on par with NASCAR (and it occasionally is, but rarely) then it would be getting the same big ratings. It's not some random coincidence that many more people watch NASCAR than the IRL, and have done so for quite a long time. If the IRL wants to get back to at least CART level popularity, it needs a huge infusion of cash. The IZOD deal is a start in that direction. And it needs to make significant changes to the on-track product, including the introduction of the new car. And it needs to heavily market its drivers, and needs more American drivers. But having multiple car makes? I don't think that's crucial to its popularity. Look at Grand Am, similar type of racing but with multiple makes, and the fan base is at the IRL level ratings-wise, and well below the IRL attendance-wise. Same with ALMS. The technology is nice, but it's only a small part of the bigger picture goals that the IRL needs to accomplish to gain back a decent fanbase.

Name me one series with "wide appeal" that is a single make series. I would have to say that the IRL is probably the most popular one make series out there. NASCAR? They are pretty much a one make series, but with different badging, and they've been loosing fans for the last couple of years.

So yes, NASCAR has huge ratings compared to the IRL. No denying that. But the evidence I've seen suggests that when they went to the COT (basically a spec car, with limited development potential) their ratings, etc. have gone down. Is THAT the model you want the IRL to use?

[garyshell]

So yes, NASCAR has huge ratings compared to the IRL. No denying that. But the evidence I've seen suggests that when they went to the COT (basically a spec car, with limited development potential) their ratings, etc. have gone down. Is THAT the model you want the IRL to use?


As much as I personally would love to see multiple chassis and engines, I can most assuredly see a business case for saying YES to your question.

Gary

[EagleEye]

As much as I personally would love to see multiple chassis and engines, I can most assuredly see a business case for saying YES to your question.

Gary

We all would love to see multiple chassis/engine combinations, but that does not always lead to better racing. Some of the best racing over the years has been in the Atlantic series (not the last few years) even after they went to a single make. The go kart races in Vegas were outstanding this past weekend, and they all operated under "spec" rules, though they did have different mfgrs.

NASCAR has great ratings, and while the slight decline might have to do with the COT, there are other factors as well. Some people who used to watch NASCAR non-stop, have tired of the marathons they have become. There is way to much in the way of pre-race coverage, and basically they have over saturated the market. More cable channles, people having less time as they get older, etc. Tons of reasons in addition to, not because of the COT.

With the current crisis with cash flow in the series, it does not make $$ sense to have a wide open rule book. A standardized cost structure can still yield good racing. We have actually had some good racing, even with the current SB's.

ALMS now has, or had the most exotic cars this side of F1, and have for some time. I remember when they ran with us in Miami years agao, and I marveld at the Audi, Cad and other LMP1 cars that were there. Amazing technology. But, even that series has issues.

Until the current situation changes, I think the controls are required to keep things close. Yes, the big teams will still prevail, but at least you allow others to participate.

That being said, I do hope things improve to the point where the rule book could be opened up a bit, and others allowed to take part. The four chassis/four engine days of CART was quite good, but even then you usually had one or two chassis engine combos that were the ones to beat.

[Jag_Warrior]

I just ran across this. I don't know if there's anything to it or not.


For several years, the long-abandoned Laurel Hill Tunnel in western Pennsylvania has allegedly been a aerodynamics test site for Chip Ganassi Racing's NASCAR and IZOD IndyCar Series teams. During this time, we've heard a couple of educated guesses about what exactly goes on inside that tunnel, including straight-line testing. If that's the case, it's not a bad weapon for Ganassi teams to have at their disposal.

That tunnel may wind up having a major role in the creation of the next-generation IndyCars, expected to hit the track in 2012. Curt Cavin of The Indianapolis Star reports that Ganassi's head of engineering, Ben Bowlby, has created a car design that's being talked up as "a cross between a sports car and a motorcycle." Cavin also says that Bowlby's design has gotten the support of major figures in the sport like Ganassi, Michael Andretti and Tony George.


http://mvn.com/indyracingrevolution/2009/11/20/tunnel-of-mystery-could-spawn-next-generation-indycar/

[DiverDown]

Do tell, if you can.

[EagleEye]

Do tell, if you can.


I signed a ND agreement, you'll have to wait a few weeks like everyone else. Very interesting though..