|
Been lurking around this thread for a bit - not sure I have anything really worthwhile to add, but here goes:
I am still in the "walk before you run" mode. Funny how horrible spec racing is to some and yet the spec racing often results from a natural selection process. As has been noted, teams that want to go fast right now will rush lemming-like to whatever chassis they perceive as "the fastest." You could have 40 different chassis' out there, but in no time every team that matters will be in one. Heck, even Penske gave up building their own chassis and this is a group that built a reasonably competitive F1 car. Not like they didn't have the know-how to do it.
Now Bob Reibe (and Bob, I love your posts because you never mince words!) makes a point about the excitement of the old days. I liked it too and I think Mario Andretti is on to something. Whatever chassis is used, the engine HAS to make more power than downforce. This is where I think Tim's point about ALMS could be huge IF the powers-that-be are able to work out some sensible rules that will (hopefully) keep one manufacturer from dominating.
I really like the idea of allowing engine size/type determine things like weight/downforce on the car. The variety should be there to allow teams to use say a small, high-revving turbo in a lighter chassis with more aero against a big honkin' V-8 in a heavier chassis with less aero (or the other way around on the aero). You get the idea.
I am with mountainstar on the corn ethanol thing too. There are enough starving people in the world without using corn (food) to feed a Flex-Fuel Escalade that gets at best 14 mpg going downhill with a tailwind.
|