Honda's latest statement said they did NOT want to compete with other engine manufacturers.

But the chassis idea is good.

First off I would ask the teams if any of them wanted to spend the money. I haven't seen where any of them have been clamoring to build their own.

If they did, the fixed cost rule is a great idea. Also, having the option to sell copies to other teams is good.

I can't imagine they would want to (huge investment, unstable series, if the chassis is good people will complain, if it is not good, it is expensive (have to build a new one.)

Further, if say, Penske built a really good chassis and won every race, would the other teams accept that?

You say blithely, "They are already winning every week anyway," but I seem to remember Justin Wilson winning last week.

If Penske or Ganassi spent a huge amount of money on a chassis, and it won all the time, wouldn't that be unfair to the teams who are forced to run the other, series spec, chassis? Now they have Some chance to win. if they had inferior equipment and had No chance to win ... it would be like allowing one team to slap a pair of turbos on the engine, but not the rest.

If they allow anyone to build, they have to allow all teams to modify, which they haven't done for cost and safety reasons.

Cost, because most teams couldn't even afford the chassis (TG gave them away) and because most teams can't afford hours of testing in a wind tunnel and on the track, and safety because testing a new aero package while racing is exceedingly dangerous.

So if development is allowed, then poor teams are screwed. So then the chassis manufacturer would have to do something like Grand Am: submit the chassis and bodywork for homologation, and then not be able to modify it all year.

But then, if the chassis underperforms compared the the spec chassis, the builder will be pissed, and demand the right to modify. Then the treams using the spec chassis would complain.

it is really hard to balance a spec series and multiple engine and chassis providers. Grand Am is a perfect example. Penske found his Porsches getting screwed because Brumos Porsche did well at Daytona. So GA readjusted Porsche for every single race, and the cars still haven't won since Daytona, and Penske has never won (despite having ALMS-winning drivers.

People get pissed when they are spending money to win, and the rulesmakers keep playing with the rules. I wouldn't be surprised to see Penske depart form GA, because we all know if the playing field is tilted, it had for sure better be tipped in Roger's direction.

Why would IRL want to put itself through all that? If the racing is good people will watch even if all the cars are the same. If the racing sucks and the teams are all pissed, the series is in trouble again.

BTW, it it were financially feasible, I would like to see multiple chassis and engines.

I'd just like to see some spec's written and extend an open invitation for chassis builders to build to it. If Dallara is the only one then so be it. But if Lola or Penske want to give it shot, it should be up to them to underwrite the R&D;and try to sell it to any of the teams.

If the free market can support more than a single chassis then it should be allowed to move in that direction. That's the way the free market works. And who know's, maybe competition will lower costs and raise innovation. But I think the IRL should be careful not to get stuck with a spec chassis designed by the sanctioning body and built by a partnering manufacturer. Again, I can live with only a single chassis if the free market dictates it. But for the IRL to make it a mandate in its regulations is against the spirit of the heiratage of the championship.

Hmm, I believe that to regain it's prominence as the top racing series in the United States, IndyCar needs to go back to the multiple chassis/multiple engines format.

The technological advantage is so great with that format that possibly a lot of technologies created for a multiple chassis/multiple engine Indycar racing format would trickle down to other racing series and ultimately to the general driving public.

Right now, Swift has a really nice new chassis running in the Formula Nippon Series that would be perfect for Indycars. I mean, come on, check out the design on the Swift 017.n chassis that Swift Engineering came up with for the Formula Nippon series. It helps that Hiro ##########, who used to race IndyCars, is a Swift Engineering Principle. He knows what would be needed.

http://www.swiftengineering.com/motorsports.html


The IRL could shrink the engines from a 4.0 Liter naturally aspirated V8 by Honda to 3.4 Liter naturally aspirated/turbocharged/twin-turbocharged V8's from Honda. Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, and Dodge.

With Penske Racing and Target-Ganassi having ties to both Dodge and Chevy respectively due to their NASCAR ties, it probably wouldn't be anything for either Roger Penske or Chip Ganassi to 'chat' with their respective engine suppliers about coming up with either a 3.4L to 4.2L, fuel-injected turbocharged/supercharged engine for their Indy Cars.


I hope that the IRL sees the wisdom in switching to a multiple chassis/multiple engine format for its racing. It would be good for AOWR.

KW