More or less Official, new car in 2012

[NickFalzone]

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

I think your underestimate how long the IRL could survive in mediocrity.

You're right that now is the time, particularly with the additional Izod money (and heck the VS 6 mill a yr aint nothing). On the other hand, they could very well keep things at a mediocre level, enjoy the additional cash flow, and let the league stabilize into something moderately profitable.

Or instead, they could place their bets on high end equipment and expensive marketing, and hope for the best.

My guess is they'll do something in between.

[gofastandwynn]

You know, I had forgotten that. But I believe you're correct. There were cooling issues with the ethanol fuel. Several blown motors if I recall correctly.

No, that wouldn't be correct because by the time ethanol switch was made in 2007 all of the full season cars were Dallaras.

I remember reading on TSO that some of the teams would complain about the shotty work done on the Panoz, with the cited example being that if you ordered a new side pod form Dallara it would bolt right in place, where as with the Panoz it would usually not fit and one would have to sand down the edges and corners to make it fit.

Now, In My Opinon, when you actuall look at the accidents where there were major injuries, the majority of them were in the Panoz over the Dallara. Paul Dana & Tony Renna, Bruno at Indy 2005, Giaffone's broken hip at Kansas 2003, Rice at Indy 2005, Briscoe at Chicago 2005. And having seen Pauls post crash photos of the car. no car made of carbon fiber should have completely collapsed around the driver like that.

[Chamoo]

No, that wouldn't be correct because by the time ethanol switch was made in 2007 all of the full season cars were Dallaras.

They made the move to 100% Ethanol in 2007, but they ran one or two years prior to that with E10 or E20.

[call_me_andrew]

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?

The change in fuel only effected the engines, not the chassis. The only change that would have forced on the chassis was changing from a 35 to 22 gallon tank.

[indyracefan]

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

As already stated, Panoz didn't keep pace in R&D and fell behind. That lead to no more updates or factory support and the chassis became uncompetitive so teams dropped the Panoz. Ganassi and Rahal-Letterman were two teams that loyally campaigned the chassis from 2003 through '05 & '06 respectively. Penske used a Panoz chassis for deFerran at Indy, Texas and California in '03. So for 7 years both chassis ran competitively on the track and in costs.

[dataman1]

If the economy is a factor in teams being able to afford new cars, then the car manufacter is not selling cars. If he is not selling cars he is not buying carbon fiber or other pieces/parts to build new cars, and so on....

If all these builders and suppliers are not selling new product would they not be willing to give better pricing during a down economy to increase their sales? Is that not what our passenger car industry is doing now?

When the economy is down it is a buyers market in most instances. So how can the league get some cash to invest in their future by buying new cars and "lease to own" them to the teams. Oh wait a minute they just got new cash didn't they. How they choose to spend it will decide their destiny. From the layoffs reported of late, it looks like people on the inside won't be getting any of it.

Food for thought.

[CCWS77]

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.

Realistically though, don't you have it backwards? What I mean is, it is all well and good to have multiple competing chassis when the finances and economic situation are such that teams can pick whichever they think is best and compete with it. If you start introducing multiple chassis when you know most teams can not afford the best one, well you have just gone and actually made the racing worse by locking many teams into substandard equipment.

I have a problem with the idea that rules dictating what equipment can be used are evil, but leaving only money to determine it is somehow better. how about rules which actually highlight the skill of the team?

The problem of not updating a racing car for many years is a different problem then not having multiple cars out there.

[chuck34]

how about rules which actually highlight the skill of the team?

You don't think fund raising is a team skill?

Funds generally flow to teams that prove they can do things well. Let's take a hypothetical situation. There are two chassis in the IRL now, we'll call them A and B. Ganassi and Penske have chassis A, and are kicking everyone's butts with it. Everyone else has chassis B. Now let's say Sarah Fisher's team hits on something with chassis B and they start beating most of the other teams with chassis B. Don't you think that sponsors will start to take notice of her team? Now maybe she has enough cash to go out and buy chassis A, and really start competing with Ganassi and Penske. But in the current system, when there are really no areas of the car/engine that can be eploited, her team really has no opportunity to shine and attract more sponsors. Does that make any sense? I know it's sort of a chicken and an egg type of deal.

To put it another way ... Right now the rules in the IRL are stifeling innovation, and innnovation is what can allow a team to stand out. Without being allowed to stand out (success/failure motives), there is no way that the status quo will ever change.

Open up the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. But the little guy has a chance to beat them every now and then.

Close down the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. And the little guy will pretty much never have a chance to beat them.

At least that's the way I see it.

[garyshell]

But in the current system, when there are really no areas of the car/engine that can be eploited, her team really has no opportunity to shine and attract more sponsors.

Then how do you explain the disparity between the top two teams and everyone else?

To put it another way ... Right now the rules in the IRL are stifeling innovation, and innnovation is what can allow a team to stand out. Without being allowed to stand out (success/failure motives), there is no way that the status quo will ever change.

Open up the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. But the little guy has a chance to beat them every now and then.

Close down the rules, and the "Big Teams" will spend their way to winning. And the little guy will pretty much never have a chance to beat them.

At least that's the way I see it.

With the rules now, what are the big teams spending their money on that puts them on top? There hase to be some "magic pixie dust" or innovation that keeps them out front.

Gary

[indyracefan]

Then how do you explain the disparity between the top two teams and everyone else?

Gary

Talent & experience.