Everybody, save 5 or 6 teams, was/is that bad off (including both series). That is one reason why I don't think that a new car is the answer for the league. Joe and Jill public would have had a hard time figuring out that the racing was better with the DP-01 than the Lola. Sure the fanatics will love it because that's what we like....... but we are already here. As opposed to the massive influx of new teams we had Stoddard coming in and bailing out Wiggins to keep the car count level because it had a chance of going down (some might suggest at the cost of losing Ford).

MIS,

You (and others) criticize the IRL for being a spec series (among other things) and then turn around and defend CC for being a spec series. When CART was very diverse you criticized the IRL for being ovals only. Yet you now defend CC even though it is a unilateral series, and the IRL has diversity.

I think you don't understand my point.

I did not defend the CCWS for being a spec series, from the stance that I LIKED spec racing. I defended them because I saw what they were trying to do, and I hoped they got it right and the racing WOULD improve and there WOULD be new teams coming in. If I had my preference, I would have loved to see more builders of chassis and engines in the series. I would loved to have seen a lot more on track action that got peoples attention. None of that happened. Maybe they didn't go FAR enough with the car. More than likely, it was too little too late.

The IRL, differed from the CCWS in that they ended up a spec series because of their INACTION. They chose to do things that made racing in the IRL not worth it, for GM, and Toyota, and wouldn't allow changes by Panoz to keep them competitive. By doing nothing but holding to their same course, they backed into being a spec series. But the spec costs the same as it did when they were NOT a spec series. So they didn't even get a cost reduction, or a leveling of the playing field that CC got. Are the IRL fans bashing the IRL for doing this ? Are the calling for more than one chassis and engine ? No. Suddenly, a spec is a GOOD thing, even though they lashed out at CART/CCWS for ending up that way.

I did not defend the CCWS for not running on ovals. I always stated that I wished they would get back to the schedule that CART had, However, running on ovals, just to stay diverse, and having the place empty would have been pointless. CC did not have the luxury that the IRL had with a TV contract. They had to make money at all the events. They had to find the races and locations to do that. So, they were roads and streets. I would have preferred a LOT more roads and only a few streets, but my preferences don't pay the bills. If ISC didn't have a falling out with CART, maybe they would have had some more oval options, but we know how that worked.

The IRL fans, on the other hand DID bash CART and then the CCWS simply because they didn't run ENOUGH ovals. We were told all about how true AMERICAN racing is done on ovals and that CART was going to "threaten" the INDY 500 because it was going away from ovals. Many of the vocal IRL fanatics claimed that they WANTED only ovals. Road racing was for those Euro people. Are they clamoring for a return to this panacea of all ovals now ? No. Are THEY now, including TG, using this track diversity as a GOOD thing ? Of course they are. The shoe fits better on THEIR foot, or they have very short memories. At some point, in the not too distant future, the IRL will have as few an oval track count as CART did. Will anyone fear for the Indy 500 ? No. Because they OWN it. Yet, the same sky is falling IRL fan went along with the story that CART would drop it, even though it was their biggest race.

I'm all for a new design and one that is closest to ideal on the numerous factors that need to be taken into account. That said, what do you all think as far as grandfathering the current Dallara (with appropriate adjustments to meet the new rules)?

If the performance of the new car is different, the current chassis might be faster or slower than the new spec. If the changes are no more substantial than a few changes to the current one, then why do it ?

johnw63 - 20 May 2008 09:35 PM

If the performance of the new car is different, the current chassis might be faster or slower than the new spec. If the changes are no more substantial than a few changes to the current one, then why do it ?

Valid point. I just thought that given how they want to cap top speed that if a small budget team could get a decent chassis at a reduced price yet still remain semi-competitive (well, at least not less competitive than if they got new stuff) then they should be able to do so. Just something I tossed out there.

I'm all for multiple chassis. Some how, I don't see it happening.

johnw63 - 21 May 2008 12:05 AM

I'm all for multiple chassis. Some how, I don't see it happening.

My guess is when all is said and done we'll see two chassis manufacturers.

Once you get four manufacturers involved, it gets tough to break even for them, unless you have a wrecker-driver signed up with one of your teams.

Also, with the dollar falling by the minute, a U.S. manufacturer has a major advantage over one from Europe or the U.K.

Don't be suprised to see a U.S. facility set up by a European race car manufacturer.

Rousers - 21 May 2008 12:32 PM

johnw63 - 21 May 2008 12:05 AM

I'm all for multiple chassis. Some how, I don't see it happening.

My guess is when all is said and done we'll see two chassis manufacturers.

Once you get four manufacturers involved, it gets tough to break even for them,

It would be great to have 4 chassis manufacturers fighting each other to sell cars.

Leave it up to them to find a way to make money, that's not for any of us to worry about.

johnw63 - 20 May 2008 09:35 PM

If the performance of the new car is different, the current chassis might be faster or slower than the new spec. If the changes are no more substantial than a few changes to the current one, then why do it ?

Exactly. But we haven't heard what the IRL is looking for in their new chassis. It's simply conjecture on this board.

The purpose of a new chassis should be speed, but I'm not sure the IRL is interested in speed. I think they want safety and show. (sounds similar to a southern racing series). What interested me about OW racing was the technology. Chassis vs chassis vs engine vs tires and the ability for a skilled driver to use their mechanical advantage coupled with their own skill. It is why I'm leaning more towards ALMS and F1.

The DP01 should be the next car, but I doubt that will happen. They should allow all the old Lolas and Reynards back to Indy as a cheaper way for privateers to get involved.

That brings up a weird thought ....

If the teams could pick from the 5 previous chassis, the CART Lola, and Reynard, the IRL Dallara and Panoz, or the CCWS DP01, I wonder what they WOULD select for the Indy 500 ? This would assume the engines would the the current Honda or the last version of the Cosworth.

johnw63 - 22 May 2008 10:31 AM

That brings up a weird thought ....

If the teams could pick from the 5 previous chassis, the CART Lola, and Reynard, the IRL Dallara and Panoz, or the CCWS DP01, I wonder what they WOULD select for the Indy 500 ? This would assume the engines would the the current Honda or the last version of the Cosworth.

The old Lola's and Reynards would be fastest if they were allowed to use the superspeedway wings.

openwheelguy - 22 May 2008 10:50 AM

johnw63 - 22 May 2008 10:31 AM

That brings up a weird thought ....

If the teams could pick from the 5 previous chassis, the CART Lola, and Reynard, the IRL Dallara and Panoz, or the CCWS DP01, I wonder what they WOULD select for the Indy 500 ? This would assume the engines would the the current Honda or the last version of the Cosworth.

The old Lola's and Reynards would be fastest if they were allowed to use the superspeedway wings.

Actually, given the same engine, I think the DP01 would be the fastest of the lot, assuming the DP01 could use its "oval kit" (An oval package was designed and wind tunnel tested). The DP01 generates more underbody downforce, giving it a higher downforce/drag ratio. Theoreticaly of course.

The DP01 would be a great choice. It generates much of it's downforce from the from the underbody insteaad of the wings which would allow for closer racing. It does have an oval package and it it is one of the best looking chassis around. The engine package could be open like it used to be at Indy ( Stock Block, Turbo, and NA pure racing engines) and use an equivalency formula for engines which worked at Indy in the past. I'd love to see three more chassis besides the DP01 and really have a series.

Hell, a formula ford fitted with a 800hp engine would create racing a 1000 times better than any indy race from the past 20 years.

Screw reduced downforce, have no downforce! If you want good racing that is the only solution. You don't need pack racing to create excitment, you need exciting cars. You need to see a car sideways, watch a driver sawing on a wheel. A good racing formula will captivate a spectator with one car on the track let alone a pack. Todays cars are so boring and static that you need packs to create any excitment or drama.

aorton27 - 22 May 2008 10:40 PM

Hell, a formula ford fitted with a 800hp engine would create racing a 1000 times better than any indy race from the past 20 years.

Screw reduced downforce, have no downforce! If you want good racing that is the only solution. You don't need pack racing to create excitment, you need exciting cars. You need to see a car sideways, watch a driver sawing on a wheel. A good racing formula will captivate a spectator with one car on the track let alone a pack. Todays cars are so boring and static that you need packs to create any excitment or drama.

No downforce would have lap speed slightly higher than what NASCAR can do at Indy. Is that what you want? Sideways at Indy!? I don't think so.