|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jun 8, 2010 9:43:26 GMT -5
Anyone have any thoughts on who is going to to win the chassis contract?
Do you think it will be the company they like the best or the concept they like the best?
I don't see any reason that can't pick a company and have them alter their concept. Otherwise it becomes a contest of which company can read the minds of the decision makers the best.
I would like to see Lola back in Indycar. Anyone else?
|
|
dale
Rookie
Posts: 92
|
Post by dale on Jun 8, 2010 10:14:10 GMT -5
Develope a rules package and let them all go at it. Let's have some innovation and diversity!
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jun 8, 2010 11:00:33 GMT -5
Develope a rules package and let them all go at it. Let's have some innovation and diversity! Well, that's not going to happen for now. Maybe in few years. They are still in major cost containment mode. |
|
|
|
Post by SWT500 on Jun 8, 2010 11:39:45 GMT -5
I think two things: First, the IRL says they want multiple engine manufacturers but only one chassis? Secondly, why change chassis at all? All the teams have them, spares are plentiful and only the rich will get richer. A nice aero package is in place that makes the playing field as level as possible, so leave it alone. Get some different engines, sure but don't make everyone buy new cars and tons of spares to stay in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jun 8, 2010 13:20:03 GMT -5
The current 1 chassis situation is the IRL's own fault. They limited the constructors to 3 - Dallara, G Force, and Falcon. Mind you they had the choice of Penske and Lola (maybe others?). The Falcon project was stillborn and Panoz G Force let their IRL chassis become obsolete when they went ChampCar racing. Falcon was a big risk that didn't pay off and G Force was a surprise but hey, if you limit the options then that can bite you in the butt. Why they never replaced Falcon with Penske or Lola is beyond me.
In the meantime, Penske Cars was dissolved due to lack of being able to really build/modify a chassis. I'd love to see Lola back at Indy - but I said that back when the IRL picked Falcon!
I say, print up some rules and cap the price for chassis, parts, etc then let every chassis manufacturer that wants to complete to build a better mousetrap on that budget. If you really wanna keep it level - mandate manufacturer parts only which means the big $$$ teams will only be able to spend that cash on better setups instead of having cars that are faster and then don't let them build a car unless they t sell 100% of the development parts to competitors.
At least that is my business plan to take to my IRL and IMS CEO job interviews.
Jordan
|
|
|
|
Post by indydog on Jun 8, 2010 13:50:13 GMT -5
I agree with Jordan.
Put a price cap on the chassis, let the teams go to any constructor they want and design a chassis. Limit weight, size, wing placement, flat bottoms, etc... and the chassis MUST be made available to anyone that whats it. No mods to the chassis are allowed, only OEM upgrade parts.
As far as engines, anything goes. Limit turbo engines to 2.5 liters and up to 6 cylinders. Non-turbo engines to 5.0 liters and 8 cylinders. No limit on boost and and all engines must be available to all teams. (that will cut down on "custom" big dollar engines)
Where do I submit my application for Indycar CEO? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by indycals on Jun 8, 2010 13:51:33 GMT -5
The problem with multiple chassis is that invariable one will be better than the other. Perhaps one better on road courses, one on ovals. This will totally play into the hands of Penske and Ganassi who will simply buy whatever they need whenever they need it (Remember Indy 2003? - Penske ran DeFerran in the G-Force and Helio in the Dallara). You think they have an advantage now, wait until you have multiple chassis makers and one starts showing an advantage. And if one is superior on all tracks, it will just run the other makers out of business, just like Lola did to March in the early 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by indydog on Jun 8, 2010 14:14:38 GMT -5
Good points Michael, but just rule that a team can only run one type of chassis. Also, I'm sure that the chassis constuctors would sign the teams to contracts to keep them from jumping ship mid-season.
If one chassis turns out to be better then the others, so be it. It's on the constructors to make a better chassis.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jun 8, 2010 15:47:08 GMT -5
While I like Jordan's idea, the unit cost per chassis would have to be higher for 3 chassis instead of one. If I'm not mistaken, there are trying to get the cost significantly lower than the current $300,000 of the current Dallara.
Maybe its something they can do a few years for now. Hopefully they will have wide variety of engines which will offset the lack of unique chassis designs.
|
|
|
|
Post by clm1545 on Jun 8, 2010 19:05:18 GMT -5
Until or unless they open up the rules, we have not gained anything. Everyone will run a V6, and with the possible exception of Ford, if they don't have the best engine, they will leave. In 3 - 5 years we will have the same deal as now. It will be one chassis and one engine. Unless you cut the boost to almost nothing, a NA engine can never compete with a turbo, and a 4 cannot compete with a V6.
Take Care
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jun 8, 2010 19:13:19 GMT -5
Until or unless they open up the rules, we have not gained anything. Everyone will run a V6, and with the possible exception of Ford, if they don't have the best engine, they will leave. In 3 - 5 years we will have the same deal as now. It will be one chassis and one engine. Unless you cut the boost to almost nothing, a NA engine can never compete with a turbo, and a 4 cannot compete with a V6. Take Care Craig I suspect they may look to GrandAm to equalize the engines. If they see the V6's running away, they will restrict them in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by clm1545 on Jun 8, 2010 21:24:09 GMT -5
Grand Am has, in my opinion, done the best job at making multiple engine/chassis combos work. If you want to see some interest, get a Ford vs Chevy show.
Take Care
Craig
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 22:34:22 GMT -5
For what it's worth, this is what I think.
As much as we would all love to see things the way they were (Penske, Lola, March, Reynard, etc.), times are different, the world is different, and everything is in constant change. The teams with the most money will always be the most competitive in mostly all sports. But look at this years 500 at what could have happened if pit strategy would have been different.
When it comes to the current situation, I like the current chassis. It is the main reason that some of the racing is close. I don't like Honda being the pulse that can control who's fast & not. They need to make the same engine available to everyone at the same price.
When it come to the next chassis, if I had to pick 1, I want Lola. It gives us a name & history that us & the fans miss. Thier ideas are pretty good, with the idea of a tub & parts that can be used in Indy Lights for a start up team which can be upgraded to Indycar based on their success & vice vera along with other ideas. I want open engine rules with limits strictly on horsepower. Look at IHRA drag racing, or Bonneville. They are able to get those Echotec 4 cylinder motors (with chassis) able to do 200+ mph. Also, who saw The 24 Hours at Daytona this year. Didn't that low budget winning team have a stock motor out of a Porche Cheynne SUV.
Engine manufactures is what will make our racing innovative & superior once again. Oh, and by the way, will everyone stop calling it the IRL, it's Indycar. If there's going to be changes let them happen here also.
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jun 30, 2010 17:07:54 GMT -5
It's official, the new chassis will be . . . . released on July 14th.  |
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 13, 2010 15:04:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jul 13, 2010 15:46:40 GMT -5
I think its going to be Lola.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 13, 2010 20:09:25 GMT -5
I was pondering the new 2.4L engine proposal first I remembered that the current F1 regulations call for a 2.4L V8 engine Limited to 18,000rpm although it can rev higher more like 21,000. Is the Indy 500 still a FIA sanctioned race? Maybe a tie in? That would about 8 or 9 race ready engines already in existance.. well something to think about!!! Ferrari at Indy! Yeah sign me up!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jul 13, 2010 20:45:27 GMT -5
I was pondering the new 2.4L engine proposal first I remembered that the current F1 regulations call for a 2.4L V8 engine Limited to 18,000rpm although it can rev higher more like 21,000. Is the Indy 500 still a FIA sanctioned race? Maybe a tie in? That would about 8 or 9 race ready engines already in existance.. well something to think about!!! Ferrari at Indy! Yeah sign me up!! Indycar has limited the number of cylinders to 6. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 13, 2010 20:50:48 GMT -5
Oh sure they say that now, what if Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari, Cosworth and others decide to lobby to run their normally- aspirated V8's against the Turbo V-6..Turbo 4's  Indy will do anything if there is enough money in for them!! |
|
|
|
Post by clm1545 on Jul 13, 2010 22:03:32 GMT -5
I am quite sure that even Roger or Chip would have a problem coming up with enough money to buy any F1 engines.
Take Care
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 13, 2010 23:38:06 GMT -5
Consider Mr Penske is on the board of Directors at Damiler Benz AG I doubt he would even have to pay for them... How do you think he got the Push Rod engine designed and built for the 94 Indy 500???
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 14, 2010 11:49:00 GMT -5
Someone said Dallara got picked!? Is that right?
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 14, 2010 12:02:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 12:08:33 GMT -5
Yes it was Dallara. At least it's something more practical than the "Batmobile".
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 14, 2010 12:16:00 GMT -5
It felt like a "Better Safe Than Sorry" decision,,, That and Dallara commited to building a facility at the track, so many decisions based on a few new jobs is the way of business today... I liked the Bat and Swift designs myself...
|
|
|
|
Post by indycals on Jul 14, 2010 12:30:13 GMT -5
Technically it's not a Dallara - it's an Indy Car built to Indy Car specs by Dallara and bodied by anyone who want's to do an aero package. If Lola does an aero package, that car will be called a Lola, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 14, 2010 12:42:15 GMT -5
That is true Michael - this wasn't a single manufacturer supplier decision but a design spec package that Dallara won. Still the low sidepods seem against the safety rules of the last 10 years!?
I hope they don't cap the suppliers available anymore - I'd love to see Lola, Dallara, Swift, and a ton of others build a car to this spec! Maybe the Captain can build again... lol
Jordan
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 14, 2010 12:48:52 GMT -5
I am sure the CDF files just opened up at Lola, Swift, Penske and others, I do like that, and it will certainly be interesting to see what the manufacturers and teams can do with this spec chassis, they have a great 18 months to work out a body/aerodynamics design that will be a winner..
|
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jul 14, 2010 13:08:36 GMT -5
I am sure the CDF files just opened up at Lola, Swift, Penske and others, I do like that, and it will certainly be interesting to see what the manufacturers and teams can do with this spec chassis, they have a great 18 months to work out a body/aerodynamics design that will be a winner.. What's a CDF file? Is it a CAD file? |
|
|
|
Post by stuboyle on Jul 14, 2010 13:10:38 GMT -5
Technically it's not a Dallara - it's an Indy Car built to Indy Car specs by Dallara and bodied by anyone who want's to do an aero package. If Lola does an aero package, that car will be called a Lola, etc. So are you saying its basically a Dallara tub? What about the undertray? |
|
Indy will do anything if there is enough money in for them!!