More or less Official, new car in 2012

[garyshell]

The IRL's second generation Dallara's & G-Force's were fairly even in performance, costs and distribution.

Then what became of the G-Force chassis? (Not challenging your comment, just wondering.)

Gary

[indyracefan]

Then what became of the G-Force chassis? (Not challenging your comment, just wondering.)

Gary

The second generation G-Force became the third generation Panoz which didn't keep pace with the Dallara. Subsequently they lost teams and R&D was cut in 2005 with only RLR running the chassis fulltime in 2006. This was about the point in time in which Panoz started the DP-01 for Champ Car.

It could be argued that Panoz developed the DP-01 due to losing the IndyCar market, or that by developing the DP-01 they fell out of favor with the ICS. By 2007 the chassis ran at Indy only with two shoe-string budget teams.


Personally I thought all three generations of G-Force/Panoz were better looking cars than the Dallara.

[V12]

I agree, from 1997-2005 there was probably little to choose between the Dallara and G-Force, some races/years the G-Force would be better, the Dallara others.

And regardless of which car you think looked better (I preferred the Dallara 2000-2002, the G-Force 2003 onwards personally), at least they did look different to the naked eye, which is why I think different chassis are even more important than having different engines.

[garyshell]

The second generation G-Force became the third generation Panoz which didn't keep pace with the Dallara. Subsequently they lost teams and R&D was cut in 2005 with only RLR running the chassis fulltime in 2006. This was about the point in time in which Panoz started the DP-01 for Champ Car.

It could be argued that Panoz developed the DP-01 due to losing the IndyCar market, or that by developing the DP-01 they fell out of favor with the ICS. By 2007 the chassis ran at Indy only with two shoe-string budget teams.


Personally I thought all three generations of G-Force/Panoz were better looking cars than the Dallara.

Doesn't that sort of prove my point about why multiple chassis are not a great idea in this economy. The G-Force and Panoz chassis were being beaten by the Dallara ones and teams had to switch. That meant those that owned the out of favor ones now had to punk down a sizable chunk of change and throw away their investment in the G-Force and Panoz ones.

Gary

[garyshell]

I agree, from 1997-2005 there was probably little to choose between the Dallara and G-Force, some races/years the G-Force would be better, the Dallara others.

If that were true than why don't we see any G-Force or Panoz chassis anymore. Even before the Dallara became the "anointed" one there were few if any of the alternates running. I would think that was due to the teams deciding the Dallara had more potential to win. No?

Gary

[V12]

If that were true than why don't we see any G-Force or Panoz chassis anymore. Even before the Dallara became the "anointed" one there were few if any of the alternates running. I would think that was due to the teams deciding the Dallara had more potential to win. No?

Gary

I said 1997-2005, not 1997-2009. Yes we've had the "same" chassis since 2003, but I'm pretty sure the 2009 Dallara differs from the 2003 version, even if they are "officially" the same. There's surely been some evolution, and it's pretty much known that Panoz "gave up" on their IndyCar after getting the Champ Car deal.

In fact in 2004 Rahal and Fernandez actively switched from the Dallara they ran in 2003 to the G-Force, so it wasn't all one-way traffic.

But by all means, if in an open formula 99% of competitors choose to run one type of car anyway, like with Dallaras in F3, or Marches back in the old CART days, then fine, that's just the way it goes. I just have a problem with it being mandated that you HAVE to run a specific car, in any form of motorsport really, let alone what is supposed to be top level.

[Chamoo]

Did the G-Force not run well once Ethanol was chosen as the fuel of choice for the IRL? I thought Ethanol ran too hot and the G-Force didn't cool effectively enough?

[V12]

Did the G-Force not run well once Ethanol was chosen as the fuel of choice for the IRL? I thought Ethanol ran too hot and the G-Force didn't cool effectively enough?

You know I hadn't thought about (or heard of) if that was the case, but thinking about it, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it was. But yeah you back up my earlier point, even if the chassis were pretty much 90% set from 2003 onwards, there were still changing regs and circumstances that needed adapting to (the 2004 change to 3 litre engines and the post-flip aero tweaks was another, even if both manufacturers were fully involved at that point). But yeah it's surely not a case that whatever the status-quo was in 2003 chassis-wise will be the same in 2009, not by a long shot.

[Lennat]

I remember reading that the 2009 car was quite a bit lighter than an older one (2003 or something...), when Sarah Fisher was comparing her two cars after getting a new one.

[ClarkFan]

Sort of like what has happened in the past, no? I agree, it was fun to see multiple chassis in the field but one always dominated and teams spent cubic dollars moving to that chassis. Then as another rose to the top folks scrapped the ones they had and moved to the new flavor of the day. It meant an ever increasing budget for chassis year after year, or often times mid season. In this economy it make no sense.

Gary

I don't think the economy is a good argument. IndyCar need to plan for the long term here. If these economic conditions hold up through 2012, the IRL is toast. Should they get ahead of the curve and shut it down now? Or plan to survive and maybe thrive in the future?

ClarkFan