Dear Lord, it's a spec chassis and not chassis specs for 2011!

[Marbles]

Chassis talk came up in the engine thread but I thought it would be better discussed in it's own thread (again?).

For me personally, this is utterly disappointing but it seems to be the way that NASCAR, errr... I mean the IRL want to go. It's really COT thinking the way I see it.

A strict turbo engine spec with participation from major builders and manufacturers well see pretty close competition, especially as the formula matures (i.e. late nineties CART). Nobody well manage an extra 200 hp. Some well have better years than others but things should be close.

However, bring competing car builders into the arena and this is where things could get messy. Egad... you may not have pack racing! You know... where it doesn't matter how talented you are, Matsushi-ta is going to finish on the same lap as you. Worse yet, something unimaginable might happen, like Penske not qualifying for the Indy 500. Pick the wrong chassis at the start of the year, even if it's stamped LOLA on the bottom, and you could be out to lunch.

And this almost flies in the face of Indy heritage considering the diversity of cars that use to compete with the same engine (Offy).

My greatest hope was for a spec safety cell or a base chassis that allowed freedom in certain areas such as suspension or wings. Hell, you may even end up with a backyard privateer, albeit a rich backyard privateer, winning the big one. Imagine that! And instead of using rear view mirrors, he used rear facing video cameras which displayed on screens inside the cockpit. Now wouldn't that be sweet for the 100th anniversary.

[Scheckterfan54]

100 % agree. Specify certain criteria, lets really go back to the days of making new innovations. But, I am thinking that the spec chassis may be best for the current series because the series is still building itself. Its a good way to lower costs to add new teams/strengthen the weak teams. Maybe after that is done, it could be seriously discussed to open the field up to new innovation. But until the ICS is to that point, it would be hurting the series to eliminate the chance alltogether for the lower budget teams. Not that marty roth has a chance anyway.

[-Helix-]

In case you guys didn't realize the IRL isn't exactly booming with popularity and making tons of profit. How are teams going to afford to update their chassis and be competitive?

It's called evening out the playing field. The big budget teams have a big enough advantage already. Sure only having one chassis is lame but it's cheaper which is a very important aspect of racing these days. Maybe in the future we'll see chassis competition if it becomes more affordable.

[Bob Riebe]

In case you guys didn't realize the IRL isn't exactly booming with popularity and making tons of profit. How are teams going to afford to update their chassis and be competitive?

It's called evening out the playing field.
It is called grade-school play-ground rules.

When supposed professional racing becomes a welfare state, it is time get the fat lady and let her sing her heart out.

[Wilf]

It is called grade-school play-ground rules.

When supposed professional racing becomes a welfare state, it is time get the fat lady and let her sing her heart out.

Then I guess it is all just a matter of timing; will the IRL last long enough so we have something to watch until the Bob Riebe Racing League takes over since even though he has a better way, we have to give him at least six or seven months to get up to speed? It shouldn't take any longer since Bob seems to think all the problems of AOWR should have been cleaned up by now.

Sorry Bob, I agree with your premise, I just can't understand why you refuse to accept the idea that what you want takes money and it takes time to gather the money.

[Scheckterfan54]

In case you guys didn't realize the IRL isn't exactly booming with popularity and making tons of profit. How are teams going to afford to update their chassis and be competitive?

It's called evening out the playing field. The big budget teams have a big enough advantage already. Sure only having one chassis is lame but it's cheaper which is a very important aspect of racing these days. Maybe in the future we'll see chassis competition if it becomes more affordable.

Isnt that pretty much what i was descibing? Having a spec chassis this time around will be best to give the lower budget teams time to grow.?.?

[Chris R]

I think a spec chassis is only gives a false sense of security regarding costs. NASCAR has been pretty darn close to a spec series for nearly 10 years - the rules are very tight - so teams spend more and more money on little details which often cost more than outright innovation.

I think an open rule book may actually be cheaper - as you can easily see from the current spec for the IRL the teams with the most resources still go fastest and in some ways the gulf is as great or greater than ever.....

I would like to see a study done by a series insider of the relative cost to run a current IRL program vs. the cost to run an AOWR program as roughly 10 year intervals going back in time. All costs would need to be indexed to a common base value. It may very well be that a spec series is cheaper - but I am not sure anybody has ever done the math..... My best guess is that we will find the roadsters with Offy's (no spec chassis, no engine manufacturers) were the cheapest to run.... That is just a guess though....

[Wilf]

I think a spec chassis is only gives a false sense of security regarding costs. NASCAR has been pretty darn close to a spec series for nearly 10 years - the rules are very tight - so teams spend more and more money on little details which often cost more than outright innovation.

I think an open rule book may actually be cheaper - as you can easily see from the current spec for the IRL the teams with the most resources still go fastest and in some ways the gulf is as great or greater than ever.....

I would like to see a study done by a series insider of the relative cost to run a current IRL program vs. the cost to run an AOWR program as roughly 10 year intervals going back in time. All costs would need to be indexed to a common base value. It may very well be that a spec series is cheaper - but I am not sure anybody has ever done the math..... My best guess is that we will find the roadsters with Offy's (no spec chassis, no engine manufacturers) were the cheapest to run.... That is just a guess though....

I have no doubt that a tube space frame and aluminum skin chassis would be cheaper, at least $100K to $150K cheaper. But then, how much do you spend to bring it's crash worthiness up to the level of today's chassis. I don't know enough about the engine cost issue so hopefully someone else can address that aspect of your post.

[Chris R]

I have no doubt that a tube space frame and aluminum skin chassis would be cheaper, at least $100K to $150K cheaper. But then, how much do you spend to bring it's crash worthiness up to the level of today's chassis. I don't know enough about the engine cost issue so hopefully someone else can address that aspect of your post.

Yeah, althought NASCARS tube frame and engines with carburetors aren't exactly cheap...

I did not mean to infer a return to roadsters - but rather that an example of fairly open rules largely devoid of manufacturer participation might be a model worth looking at in order to keep costs down..... Technology is not nearly as expensive as excessive rules....

In the name of safety it might be worth using a spec "saftey cell" like in speedboats - it may also be impractical - just throwing it out there....

[PA Rick]

A spec series might keep the costs down to the large teams, but it negates small team innovation. Wings, aerodynamics, ground effects, tire development, turbocharging, diesels, etc have all benefited from the days when a team could think outside the box. When everyone has to stay in the box, it becomes less interesting.

[Chris R]

A spec series might keep the costs down to the large teams, but it negates small team innovation. Wings, aerodynamics, ground effects, tire development, turbocharging, diesels, etc have all benefited from the days when a team could think outside the box. When everyone has to stay in the box, it becomes less interesting.

Exactly - the small teams can become bigger team through innovation - they do not stand a chance if it is about resources and fine tuning a spec chassis and engine is all about resources.....

[Rex Monaco]

Maybe they could allow each engine maker the ability to have it's own unique engine cowl. That way, at least a portion of the car would differ slightly from their competitors cars.

But that's a compromise, as I'd rather see them allow aero development on the chassis.

[Bob Riebe]

I have no doubt that a tube space frame and aluminum skin chassis would be cheaper, at least $100K to $150K cheaper. But then, how much do you spend to bring it's crash worthiness up to the level of today's chassis. I don't know enough about the engine cost issue so hopefully someone else can address that aspect of your post.
Crash worthiness.

As you are concerned about saftey, do you have the stats for dead or crippled drivers from 1975-1985, 1986-1996 as compared to 1997-2007 taking into acount both CART/CC and IRL?

[Bob Riebe]

Then I guess it is all just a matter of timing; will the IRL last long enough so we have something to watch until the Bob Riebe Racing League takes over since even though he has a better way, we have to give him at least six or seven months to get up to speed? It shouldn't take any longer since Bob seems to think all the problems of AOWR should have been cleaned up by now.

Sorry Bob, I agree with your premise, I just can't understand why you refuse to accept the idea that what you want takes money and it takes time to gather the money.Dumming down to the lowest common denominator makes it cheaper how.
Ask the GT1 boys in the IMSA how CHEAP it was for them to try to equal buck-up Chevy.
The only one who came close was the buck-up Ferrari Pro-drive effort and the left after one year.

Yep let us take PROFESSIONAL racing down to the level of SCCA week-end amateur racing, hell just put a little nitro into a Formula Ford for the WOW factor.
If you can't pay, you can't play, and if that means the end of the series tought sh--.
The under-whelming response to CC, the IRL, IMSA and GARRA shows that your idea, is a quick path to mediocrity, but then that seems to be the standard for the U.S. for the past eighteen years.

[Bob Riebe]

I think a spec chassis is only gives a false sense of security regarding costs. NASCAR has been pretty darn close to a spec series for nearly 10 years - the rules are very tight - so teams spend more and more money on little details which often cost more than outright innovation.

Most of the little details are under the hood. As NASCAR tries to play same but different game, without having Detroit say, goodbye, huge amounts are spent on the parts of the engine where things can be done differently.
Enormous amounts of money are being spent there.

[Marbles]

Maybe in the future we'll see chassis competition if it becomes more affordable.

Ever since my time machine broke down, 2011 is the future.



I would like to see a study done by a series insider of the relative cost to run a current IRL program vs. the cost to run an AOWR program as roughly 10 year intervals going back in time. All costs would need to be indexed to a common base value. It may very well be that a spec series is cheaper - but I am not sure anybody has ever done the math..... My best guess is that we will find the roadsters with Offy's (no spec chassis, no engine manufacturers) were the cheapest to run.... That is just a guess though....

A lot of great points Chris, but this question is very intriguing. Was it cheaper (indexed of course) for those 31 cars that showed up in Portland to compete in 1994? Not for the big guys -- I doubt that very much. But... there were options available to the poor and downtrodden teams back then in an "open" series. They could run 2 or 3 year old "out of date" chassis that otherwise would be sitting in a mall somewhere. Older spec engines surely had to be cheaper to lease. Was a Chevy "A" the same as a "B" or a "C". Did a Judd cost the same as a Cosworth?


Dumming down to the lowest common denominator makes it cheaper how.
Ask the GT1 boys in the IMSA how CHEAP it was for them to try to equal buck-up Chevy.
The only one who came close was the buck-up Ferrari Pro-drive effort and the left after one year.


The lowest common denominator is exactly the term I was going to use. Really, it was but I didn't have time to post yesterday ;) . We have all seen in the last ten years what affordable racing brings us. It means a guy like Marty Roth will hang around for the whole season instead of just taking a shot at Indy. Meanwhile, at the sharp end of the grid, Penske is going to spend x-amount of dollars whether he can carve a new under body or trim a winglet the size of your thumb nail.

No disrespect to Mary Roth intended. I admire his spirit.

[Wilf]

Dumming down to the lowest common denominator makes it cheaper how.
Ask the GT1 boys in the IMSA how CHEAP it was for them to try to equal buck-up Chevy.
The only one who came close was the buck-up Ferrari Pro-drive effort and the left after one year.

Yep let us take PROFESSIONAL racing down to the level of SCCA week-end amateur racing, hell just put a little nitro into a Formula Ford for the WOW factor.
If you can't pay, you can't play, and if that means the end of the series tought sh--.
The under-whelming response to CC, the IRL, IMSA and GARRA shows that your idea, is a quick path to mediocrity, but then that seems to be the standard for the U.S. for the past eighteen years.

I don't understand your point; what was spec about IMSA GT1? Any number of racing series have spent themselves to oblivion while the sanctioning body was trying to "equalize" competition.

Do you really think you can take 15 or 20 of the best open wheel drivers and dumb them down simply because they don't have the latest and greatest chassis or engine. I believe today's top drivers are every bit as good as those of yesteryear. The skills are different, but the thought processes and reactions are every bit as good. That is what separates them from the SCCA weekend warrior.

I will admit that teams, engineers in particular, have been hurt because creativity has been stepped on. But, I believe, the engineers have simply turned their attention other areas of development. When given an opportunity they will be able to resume off the wall searches for speed.

What happened in 1990 (18 years ago) that turned you off on AOWR?

I personally thought world ended when the turbine was allowed to run at Indy. Its a car race, not a car race against an airplane that didn't take off. OK, I was young then and the whoosh didn't turn me on the way the turbo Offy's and Fords did. Then I joined FART (Future Auto Racing Talent) to protest the formation of CART. I was a huge Dan Gurney fan, but didn't believe it was necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water. But, who is to say USAC would not have experienced the same problems that toppled CART. USAC's Silver Crown speedway car of a couple years ago shows that.

To be honest, I've never been a fan of any sanctioning body because they don't build or drive the cars and I don't believe any sanctioning body has ever won a race even though they have taken races away from numerous drivers.

I've got some research to do and I've rambled long enough; answer me if you wish.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't understand your point; what was spec about IMSA GT1? Any number of racing series have spent themselves to oblivion while the sanctioning body was trying to "equalize" competition. The restrictor rules are the spec. "equalizer in the IMSA/ACO. Chevy spent huge amounts for cylinder heads, available ONLY to the factory, designed with no other reason other than to beat the restrictor, and it worked well.

Do you really think you can take 15 or 20 of the best open wheel drivers and dumb them down simply because they don't have the latest and greatest chassis or engine. I believe today's top drivers are every bit as good as those of yesteryear. The skills are different, but the thought processes and reactions are every bit as good. That is what separates them from the SCCA weekend warrior. Tullius of Jaguar fame said the best driver he ever faced NEVER drove one lap in a professional race, amateur or pro has NOTHING to do with drivers talent. Week-end non-pro racing has put some driver with incredible talents on race tracks, AND back when some factories were spending todays equivalent of millions for a non-paying race, there were some damn good races.
POINT, I never have, and never will judge a series by the supposed presence or lack thereof in talent; for me it is the cars, period.

I will admit that teams, engineers in particular, have been hurt because creativity has been stepped on. But, I believe, the engineers have simply turned their attention other areas of development. When given an opportunity they will be able to resume off the wall searches for speed.See above about Chevy. The more rules, the more it costs to go fast and the fewer people will waste money beating their heads against the wall as they simply cannot afford to cheat te rules, or cheat the rules as well as the bucks-up boys.

What happened in 1990 (18 years ago) that turned you off on AOWR?I did not really see the bloom go off Indy cars till Mr. George allowed leased engines. That was what killed CART, in part, and to think it would be differnt in the IRL, would be foolish; at the same time badged farce engines are just that, a badged farce.

I personally thought world ended when the turbine was allowed to run at Indy. Its a car race, not a car race against an airplane that didn't take off. OK, I was young then and the whoosh didn't turn me on the way the turbo Offy's and Fords did. Then I joined FART (Future Auto Racing Talent) to protest the formation of CART. I was a huge Dan Gurney fan, but didn't believe it was necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water. But, who is to say USAC would not have experienced the same problems that toppled CART. USAC's Silver Crown speedway car of a couple years ago shows that. Gurney was one of the dweebs that helped form CART but then Gurney was one of the first members to be crapped on by CART; A: they did not allow him the inches necessary to run a push-rod without tuning to grenade levels, and B: they banned his early eighties car design that was different from the rest.
He found out what goes around, comes around.

To be honest, I've never been a fan of any sanctioning body because they don't build or drive the cars and I don't believe any sanctioning body has ever won a race even though they have taken races away from numerous drivers.Sadly they do not agree with you and their god complex is what is making automobile racing an irrelevent farce.

I've got some research to do and I've rambled long enough; answer me if you wish.
NPR.

[Miatanut]

A lot of great points Chris, but this question is very intriguing. Was it cheaper (indexed of course) for those 31 cars that showed up in Portland to compete in 1994? Not for the big guys -- I doubt that very much. But... there were options available to the poor and downtrodden teams back then in an "open" series. They could run 2 or 3 year old "out of date" chassis that otherwise would be sitting in a mall somewhere. Older spec engines surely had to be cheaper to lease. Was a Chevy "A" the same as a "B" or a "C". Did a Judd cost the same as a Cosworth?
I was always a fan of John Judd, when he was competing in F1 and in CART, and I was thinking the Judd was gone at Portland by '94 so I went looking. Turns out it was there up to 1992:
http://www.champcarstats.com/races/199206.htm
Check that out! I count 6 different chassis and 6 different engines, and, yes, a lot of the field was running hand-me-downs. I don't remember it taking anything away from my pleasure. If anything, since I'm a gearhead, it made walking through the paddock more interesting, because you could really see the incredible shrinking engines progression from one end of the paddock to the other.

Good times! :up:

[-Helix-]

Ever since my time machine broke down, 2011 is the future.

And so is 2012, 2013, 2014...

I know a lot of you are stuck in the 90's, but times change. AOWR is spec now (and has been for a while too - even CC was spec for those who don't remember) and probably will be for quite some time, especially with the way the economy is looking.

[PA Rick]

There needs to be some form of diversity for the series to be interesting. I'm so old I can remember when they allowed turbos and NA engines and set a displacemment limit for each which roughly made them equal but still different enough to make it interesting. The NA cars got off the corners faster and the turbos had greater top end. Drivers would sometimes pass another car!
Likewise, a rev limit makes sure almost every engine makes it to the end of the race, regardless how much the driver abuses it.
Safety is very important so perhaps a standard tub would be necessary, but all of the other bolt on bits should be wide open.
I don't know about you but spec racer fords are fun for the drivers but a yawn to the spectators and fans.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="PA Rick"]There needs to be some form of diversity for the series to be interesting. I'm so old I can remember when they allowed turbos and NA engines and set a displacemment limit for each which roughly made them equal but still different enough to make it interesting. The NA cars got off the corners faster and the turbos had greater top end. Drivers would sometimes pass another car!
Likewise, a rev limit makes sure almost every engine makes it to the end of the race, regardless how much the driver abuses it.
[/QUOTEAnd a rev limiter eliminates that situation as it prevents an engine from being tuned to the best of its natural power curve.
One cannot have his cake and eat it too.

[Miatanut]

And a rev limiter eliminates that situation as it prevents an engine from being tuned to the best of its natural power curve.
One cannot have his cake and eat it too.
How so? The designer needs to make intake runner length and diameter, header length and diameter, cam profile and similar choices to go with the rev range they are going to work with. That's going to be a bit different for a 2.4 L club racing engine vs. when F1 was running 20,000, but the only things you can say for sure is that the faster an engine runs, the more horsepower it can potentially make and the more it costs to keep it in one piece.

Personally, I think air restrictors have turned out to be a pretty good method for equalizing performance among different kinds of engines, but rev limits are the most powerful tool for keeping costs down.

[Chris R]

I think the long off-season is the biggest threat to the future of AOWR ;)

We have way to much time to discuss engine and chassis rules and general philosophy of AOWR..... :p

not that I do not thoroughly enjoy these topics but they seem to be making more enemies than friends.....

[Bob Riebe]

How so? The designer needs to make intake runner length and diameter, header length and diameter, cam profile and similar choices to go with the rev range they are going to work with. That's going to be a bit different for a 2.4 L club racing engine vs. when F1 was running 20,000, but the only things you can say for sure is that the faster an engine runs, the more horsepower it can potentially make and the more it costs to keep it in one piece.

Personally, I think air restrictors have turned out to be a pretty good method for equalizing performance among different kinds of engines, but rev limits are the most powerful tool for keeping costs down.
Chevy rules in IMSA GT1 because they spent ASTRONOMICAL amounts to cheat the restrictor rules and did. (Special exclusive cylinder heads.)
Everyone else QUIT, because they could not spend that amount.

Ditto Audi, with the old V-8.

Boy that will really help the series

GARRA has other limits and is not very popular, outside of Daytona becasue it is boring sameness.
Every one drones around at the same apprx. speed, IF you chose the engine that works best under the rules, and in open wheel racing that would/will soon lead back to a one make series not much better than any SCCA spec.series.
Plus, as they are using four-bangers, it will sound like Formula Fords, or maybe Super Vee.

[Miatanut]

Chevy rules in IMSA GT1 because the spent ASTRONOMICAL amounts to cheat the restrictor rules and did.
Everyone else QUIT, because they could not spend that amount.

Ditto Audi, with the old V-8.

Boy that will really help the series

GARRA has other limits and is not very popular, outside of Daytona becasue it is boring sameness.
Every one drones around as the same apprx. speed, IF you chose the engine that works best under the rules, and in open wheel racing that would/will soon lead back to a one make series not much better than any SCCA spec.series.
Plus, as they are using four-bangers, it will sound like Formula Fords, or maybe Super Vee.

How do you "cheat the restrictor rules"? If you spend a lot of development on the engine, you will get more power, but that's not cheating. As I understand it, there is some kind of magic in keeping the air flow just barely under supersonic, which is what everybody tries to do. NASCAR restrictor plate racing is much the same, and teams can spend millions if they want to.

That's racing.

Restrictors seem to work very well in F3 and ALMS.

[Bob Riebe]

How do you "cheat the restrictor rules"? If you spend a lot of development on the engine, you will get more power, but that's not cheating. As I understand it, there is some kind of magic in keeping the air flow just barely under supersonic, which is what everybody tries to do. NASCAR restrictor plate racing is much the same, and teams can spend millions if they want to.

That's racing.

Restrictors seem to work very well in F3 and ALMS. LOL, yeah for Chevy and Audi
Cheating the rules, is a term that does not mean someone is cheating, but has reached a lever superior to others, that cheats the sanctions "fairness" doctrine while still being totally legal.
(I.E. the asinine oft quoted "spirit" of the rules. Penske's p2 Porsche is the most GLARING example)

[PA Rick]

Cheating the rules, is a term that does not mean someone is cheating, but has reached a lever superior to others, that cheats the sanctions "fairness" doctrine while still being totally legal.
(I.E. the asinine oft quoted "spirit" of the rules. Penske's p2 Porsche is the most GLARING example)

Cheating the rules isn't cheating. Reaching a level superior to others IS cheating?
Are you a NASCAR fan?

[Miatanut]

Cheating the rules, is a term that does not mean someone is cheating, but has reached a lever superior to others, that cheats the sanctions "fairness" doctrine while still being totally legal.
(I.E. the asinine oft quoted "spirit" of the rules. Penske's p2 Porsche is the most GLARING example)

It looks to me like the Acura P2 is now giving the Porsche a run for its money, so I don't know that it is such a great example. With Penske, we can look back to the pushrod Indy engine and 917/30 as better examples of what you are talking about, but to me, that's just racing. If you want to give total commitment to a series, throwing perhaps disproportionate resources at it, you can dominate.

[Bob Riebe]

It looks to me like the Acura P2 is now giving the Porsche a run for its money, so I don't know that it is such a great example. With Penske, we can look back to the pushrod Indy engine and 917/30 as better examples of what you are talking about, but to me, that's just racing. If you want to give total commitment to a series, throwing perhaps disproportionate resources at it, you can dominate.
Penske beat the Audis last year, i.e. a class two car beating the class one cars.
P2 was SUPPOSED to be for the lowly privateers, NOT a semi-factory team.
Now that the IMSA has changed the rules that allowed Penske to win, he is quitting the class.
As I said, he CHEATED the SPIRIT of the rules.
If you read some of the sports car forums, there was a LOT of whining about how it was UNFAIR, he cheated, he did not follow the SPIRIT of the rules.

Same with GT1, the asinine ACO did not think, anyone would spend millions for special parts for the GT class, they ASSUMED their precious p1 would be the place they did that.
THEY were wrong, Chevy cheated the rules and no one game a damn about p1 outside of Audi, SO until Penske cheated the rules in his manner, all we had were p1 and GT1 parades.
Well that problem has been addressed so GT1 seems to be going bye-bye and parades will return to p1 and p2.

[Bob Riebe]

To stop from continuing in off topic posts: Cheat the rules-- is Figure of Speech, period.

[Wilf]

To stop from continuing in off topic posts: Cheat the rules-- is Figure of Speech, period.

I'm beginning to understand how Clinton could ask with a straight face what the definition of is is.

[Jag_Warrior]

Back to the chassis...

Maybe this hasn't been addressed or decided yet, but even though it's a single make chassis, will any revisions or modifications be allowed by the teams?

[Wilf]

Back to the chassis...

Maybe this hasn't been addressed or decided yet, but even though it's a single make chassis, will any revisions or modifications be allowed by the teams?

The IRL keeps insisting that no modifications are permitted but the teams that are continuously fast have budgets which allows access to a wind tunnel and a large oven to cure carbon fiber body panels.