2011 spec chassis and tires - official?!

[courageous]

Spec racing (or as near as damn it) happens through natural selection anyway (all teams will try and get the best car & unless it is a new car every year, they will know what is the best)- there are only 3 ways to stop this happening (that I can think of):

A) performance balancing (weight/air restrictor etc...) - Urghhh
B) every team must run a unique chassis (a la F1) - $$$$

Leftfield wild idea:

C) The IRL owns 3 types of car & leases them out - any team that wants to score in the championship must use each design at least 5 times

[johntt]

Originally Posted by courageous

Spec racing (or as near as damn it) happens through natural selection anyway (all teams will try and get the best car unless it is a new car every year, they will know what is the best)- there are only 3 ways to stop this happening (that I can think of):

A) performance balancing (weight/air restrictor etc...) - Urghhh
B) every team must run a unique chassis (a la F1) - $$$$

Leftfield wild idea:

C) The IRL owns 3 types of car & leases them out - any team that wants to score in the championship must use each one at least 5 times

Whats needed to prevent a spec series forming is to allow free development, if one particular chassis or engine starts to pull out a significant gap then it can be slowed down a bit by air restrictor sizes/extra weight.

The ACO do this all the time (e.g. the extra kg added to the Aston and Corvette in GT1 / the reduction in fuel tank size for diesel P1s), it preserves the technical diversity of the sport while not being excessive like FIA-GT3/4 is where they equalise cars to the nth degree.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by johntt

Whats needed to prevent a spec series forming is to allow free development, if one particular chassis or engine starts to pull out a significant gap then it can be slowed down a bit by air restrictor sizes/extra weight.

The ACO do this all the time (e.g. the extra kg added to the Aston and Corvette in GT1 / the reduction in fuel tank size for diesel P1s), it preserves the technical diversity of the sport while not being excessive like FIA-GT3/4 is where they equalise cars to the nth degree.

That is still spec. racing, all cars are dummied down to the same boring level.

The Corvette has been a one car show since 2003 in the US; make the effort a team does worthless by contrived restrictions and they will pack-up and go home, or simply not show up.
They spend money to win, not play around with some dictatorial sanction's grade school rules.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by courageous

C) The IRL owns 3 types of car & leases them out - any team that wants to score in the championship must use each design at least 5 times

I hadn't considered this possibility. I like it.

[gttouring]

every one is rumoring to come back. it can only get better...

[cptkablamo]

I don't buy into the notion that everyone will just rush to the so called best car. Yes this has happened with two series with seriously limited funds but the opposite has also happened in other series - ACO style racing, superbikes, Grand Am, 125, 250cc Moto to name but a few.

Look at the IRL and CART before the money disappeared. CART had Lola, Reynard, Swift, Penkse who could all win and multiple manufacturers could
win. And it is not that long ago that Panoz/G Force won Indy...

Yes the big teams will always win but a cheaper car or a car that is particularly good on a road course for example will be good for some teams whole others will go for a all round car...

I also think that to get people interested a diversity in the look of the cars. If the Panoz was still going, that would create loyalities as the cars look so different - and if the Panoz had the same development as the Dallara, the might be in with a chance on certain tracks.

And at the start I can live with performance levellers to be reviewed at certain points (ie when there is enough money to develop the cars, you won't need performamce levelling things) to encourage some teams to use a Dallara, some to use a Lola, some to use a Swift etc...

Competition in every respect should be encouraged - this is meant to be top line, not F3

[Amar7605]

What if the teams and manufactuers were allowed to develop the cars the way they want to because in the end can't the top-line limitation be the racetracks themselves?

[mattcat]

For the second consecutive year, the series showed reporters scale models of what the new cars might look like and among the potentially dramatic changes were wing design, some of which were curved, and the shapes of the cars, including one that looked more like a tube than a race car.

What is wrong with the way that the cars look now? "More like a tube than a race car" does not sound very appealing to me. I really hope they don't do something dumb...

[johntt]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is still spec. racing, all cars are dummied down to the same boring level.

The Corvette has been a one car show since 2003 in the US; make the effort a team does worthless by contrived restrictions and they will pack-up and go home, or simply not show up.
They spend money to win, not play around with some dictatorial sanction's grade school rules.

1) Spec is when there are mandated parts/cars that everyone has to use, by that standard FIA-GT3 is spec, but its not, its just equalised to the nth degree, which IMO is too far.

What I advocate is that if a particular car pulls out a significant gap over the rest that its gets pulled back a bit to stop it totally dominating, not bringing it down to the level of the next fastest car.

2) If you are so amazingly clever, please tell me how you would preserve technical diversity in a series, spec/total equalisation is boring but leaving it completely open would lead to costs getting out of control and one manufacturer dominating (e.g. Toyota in many N.American racing series over the years) that leads to a de facto spec series, teams leaving, people getting laid off and the series collapsing.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by johntt

1) Spec is when there are mandated parts/cars that everyone has to use, by that standard FIA-GT3 is spec, but its not, its just equalised to the nth degree, which IMO is too far.

What I advocate is that if a particular car pulls out a significant gap over the rest that its gets pulled back a bit to stop it totally dominating, not bringing it down to the level of the next fastest car.

2) If you are so amazingly clever, please tell me how you would preserve technical diversity in a series, spec/total equalisation is boring but leaving it completely open would lead to costs getting out of control and one manufacturer dominating (e.g. Toyota in many N.American racing series over the years) that leads to a de facto spec series, teams leaving, people getting laid off and the series collapsing.

WHen cars are reduced to a SPECIFIC lap time THAT IS spec. racing.

Until the spec. and quasi-spec. cancer hit racing in the nineties, there was a huge amount of variety, cost or no cost, equal or unequal, return to that and the racers will return.

Close racing did not bring people in to see racing through sixties till early nineties, as it was rare, but car variety brought tens of thousands of gearheads who were loyal to a make to see their make run.
Which is why when Ford went racing in USAC people paid attention, as did Chevy boys when Gurney tried using one and Rager put a iron block Chevy in the third row.
The latter got huge prees.

ONLY the huge budget teams have the money to cheat a spec. which as I said Chevy (and Audi) proved in spades in the ACO/IMSA.
The IMSA slowed Saleen down when he dared to have a car win, so he packed up and left; boy that really worked well, didn't it.

[Teretonga]

THe IRL restricted the cars to three brands(Panoz, Dallara and Kranefuss). The latter got no buyers, of the other two Dallara got more customers and over the next two years better results. The Panoz didn't get as much intensive development as the Dallara either. They now all use Dallara's.

In the 90's Lola, and Reynard battled it out, AAR Eagle and Penske eventually joining them. In the 80's it was Lola, March, Patrick, Eagle earlier, Chapparal while they had an advantage, and Penske. As long as no one manufacturer has an ascendancy there will be competition.

However since the early 90's the cost of building and developing a car has escalted enormously. So much so that if you make the wrong choice (e.g. Lola in CART, 94-95) it can suck your team down a tube or for the manufacturer make it impossible to recover your market.

Even back in the 80's and 90's it was a problem. That happened eventually to both March and Reynard, which is why they disappeared.
The likelihood of teams being able to take a chance on building their own chassis is quite remote now. Ask Roger Penske if he would build his own chassis for the IRL if he was allowed to....
The chances of even Penske coming up with something that would give him a distinct advantage (it would need to be good to make it worthwhile) is quite remote. Advantages are now measured in 100ths of seconds, not seconds, as they used to be.
The cost of failure is simply too high.

[bil588]

Impressive Guest List at Engine Summit

6-27-2008

SPEEDtv.com has learned that Audi, BMW, Chevrolet, Fiat, Mazda and Volkswagen sent representatives to discuss the future specifications for Indy car racing. Engine builders Cosworth, John Judd, Ilmor and AER were also in attendance.

The F1 contingent was led by Fiat, which owns Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Maserati, and BMW, recent winners of the Canadian Grand Prix.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...engine-summit/

[bil588]

Brian Barnhart: only one chassis?

Q: Has a plan been solidified yet to stay with a single engine manufacturer/chassis or is the competition going to allow for an engine spec that would permit multiple manufacturers to compete in the series that is to say might we see Honda, Cosworth, Chevy etc offering up a spec engine for the series? If I recollect that is how it used to be, correct? Might we also see a gamut of chassis types e.g. Dallara, Panoz, Lola or will we be stuck with a single chassis design?

Rob W., Reston, VA

Robin Miller: Sadly Rob we will be stuck with only one chassis (Dallara) because Brian Barnhart tells people it's going to help control the costs. Really? I guess that's why today's IRL budgets to run up front are $8 million. If the IRL rulebook wasn't so open, maybe costs could be contained but right now it's out of control and Dallara is making a killing on parts. Having Lola and Panoz build cars would be productive as well as competitive, just like having multiple engine manufacturers. Who knows if anybody will step up to challenge Honda but there seems to be interest from several companies, so let's hope so.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...g-for-july-16/

[indycool]

Some think opening up the rule book will contain costs. Some think one chassis will contain costs.

But look what happened with Dallara and Panoz. Dallara kept developing. Panoz didn't. Panoz got behind. Everybody bought Dallaras. And those who originally bought Panozes and wanted to compete had to buy chassis all over again. Is that cost containment?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by indycool

Some think opening up the rule book will contain costs. Some think one chassis will contain costs.

But look what happened with Dallara and Panoz. Dallara kept developing. Panoz didn't. Panoz got behind. Everybody bought Dallaras. And those who originally bought Panozes and wanted to compete had to buy chassis all over again. Is that cost containment?

That is competition and that is life, this is not a grade school playground, much less a government welfare program.

Racing is not about being fair, racing is about winning, period.

[indycool]

Sure it is, Bob. I agree. But we're talking about cost containment here, not competition.

[mattcat]

Originally Posted by indycool

Sure it is, Bob. I agree. But we're talking about cost containment here, not competition.

I believe that the logic is that if costs are contained and more teams are able to purchase the parts necessary to run up front, the competition on the track will improve. And in the end, isn't that what we all want to see?

I like to see competition between manufacturers, engine suppliers, tire companies, etc... just as much as the next guy, but if you have to much of a disparity and the racing suffers, then what is the point?

If the IRL can regulate many different suppliers of parts to be pretty much even across the board, then yes, that is a good idea. If they cannot (and their track record is not so good in this department), then it is not such a hot idea.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by mattcat

I believe that the logic is that if costs are contained and more teams are able to purchase the parts necessary to run up front, the competition on the track will improve. And in the end, isn't that what we all want to see?

Matt and Indy:
Cost containment IS SPEC. and NEVER cannot be; that is the anti-thesis of competition in automobile racing.

IF you are running an amateur club race, where buddies race for the hell of it a blah spec. series is fine, and the SCCA has MANY of those.

Automobile racing exists because component manufacturers wanted to prove their product was better than the next, that CANNOT be done with grade-school fairness rules.(Cost containment IS about being
fair so every one has the same dung from the same pile; to the exclusion of builders and sponsors entering to show how good their product is.
Have you ever wondered why drag racing is FULL -FULL of automotive racing sponsors, and open wheel and road racing have damn near zero?)

The "more teams are able" is the biggest damned lie that has seems to have fooled a lot of people.
IF it worked open wheel racing would have been overflowing with competitors, as it did when no one played the bs "cost containment" game.

The old saying is if you cannot pay, you cannot play and all bs feel good rules are not going to change that, but are seriously detroying racing.

[indycool]

NASCAR seems to be doing pretty well with a far tighter rules situation than the IRL and four manufacturers which aren't even allowed to configure their cars, which are all the same with a common template.

I know by your previous posts that you abhor the term or idea of anything "spec." Yet, Honda is getting valuable information from the use of ethanol. And I expect, in ALL series, manufacturers are continuing to develop information on aerodynamics for fuel mileage. Anyone who has ever "drafted" a semi on an Interstate in two different cars knows that some work better than others.

[johntt]

Spec is not:

1) Cars designed for a certain lap time - Group B rallying is a good example of how cars got so fast that they outgrew the courses that they ran on. In addition, people nowadays don't expect or accept death in motorsport like they did in the 1950s. IMO the focus for motorsport will be mirror

2) Cost containment - is necessary in some areas to stop a series being dominated by one manufacturer leading to teams either leaving and the series collapsing or one or two manufacturers dominating causing a de facto spec series.

Open the series to multiple chassis and engine makers but if one particular engine or chassis is light years ahead of the rest then close the gap a bit, don't peg them back to the exact same level as the next fastest car, and account for the quality of the teams/drivers is the decision.

Spec is where everyone runs the exact same car, woth the exact same tyres and the exact same engine and no improvements are permittted (e.g. in F3 if you think you can mount the suspension in a better way than Dallara did when the built the car then you can do that, try that in Gp2 and they throw the book at you).

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by indycool

NASCAR seems to be doing pretty well with a far tighter rules situation than the IRL and four manufacturers which aren't even allowed to configure their cars, which are all the same with a common template.

NASCAR CANNOT be an analogy, period.
NASCAR is a unique entity that was hammered, by hook or crook by Big Bill France Sr.
He took no prisoners; when Detroit pulled out, he cultivated drivers into stars, while at the same time keeping enough variety in the makes running to keep make loyal gear-heads happy. He brought back Dodge when he thought that was necessary.(I still have the Competition Press & Autoweek where the head of SCCA racing said they were going to change Trans-Am rules to mimic NASCAR.
In the sixteen years Trans-Am had existed at that point, surviving tough years, it was again growing with factory teams; sixteen years after that announcement, it was on its death bed--SMART MOVE huh.)


Beyond Daytona and Talledega the engines still are not HP regulated, which is why they now quote 850+ hp if one tries to find how much they produce.
Chevy, Dodge, Ford and Toyota put millions of dollars into engine programs, with dimensional limits in place they still can build a better mouse-trap if patience is used.
KEY word--Chevy, Dode, Ford and Toyota have ENGINE PROGRAMS, when little Brian France said he was going to impose a cost containment GENERIC SPEC. engine, they said fine, but we will pull out ALL of our teams and involvement.
The "engine of tomorrow" is now on indefinite hold.

[indycool]

Yes. Key word: Engines. Not chassis. Not tires.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by indycool

Yes. Key word: Engines. Not chassis. Not tires.

The IRL did/does not even have the engine part, they were all strictly controlled spec. engines.
If one part is spec. the maker can charge as damn much as they want and the sanction cannot do squat about it; "cost control" -- BS.

[indycool]

The IRL entered into agreements with Dallara for chassis and Honda for engines as far as cost goes.

[Teretonga]

'Spec' series are built around cost containment as much as anything.

It's an effort to equate the cost of competing.
I do not regard the IRL as a spec series, nor F3. Champcar evolved into a spec series when it was apparent no one else was going to build a car in 2000/2001 that could beat the Lola.

GP2 is a spec series.
Nascar is not a spec series, in spite of the Car of Tomorrow, but it is interesting that Toyota are being 'restricted' (but not handicapped), in the Nationwide series with a new ruling on engine specs.

If you had different chassis manufacturers but all building the chassis to a very controlled specification that could be as much a 'spec' series as Indy car is at present. Just a whole lot more expensive as each manufacturer spent a fortune trying to find a way the beat the other manufacturers.
The add the engine rules ...
If the engines were all restricted in design so they were within 20-30 bhp of each other and fixed for two or three years it wouldn't be spec but it would be VERY expensive. We actually have something like that now.

It's called F1....