Why the entire IndyCar "concept cars" is wrong

[HoustonCartFan]

I don't want to see just one chassis on the track. I would like to see all these concepts race against each other. Having everyone in the same chassis is just plain boring to me. I didn't like it in CART or in IndyCar.

I think they should just publish an engine spec, aero spec and set an NFL like budget cap. Bring back technological creativity and let the smartest team/best driver combo win.

[Chamoo]

I don't want to see just one chassis on the track. I would like to see all these concepts race against each other. Having everyone in the same chassis is just plain boring to me. I didn't like it in CART or in IndyCar.

You are preaching to the choir.

[V12]

You are preaching to the choir.

I clicked on this topic intending to leave this exact reply, word for word, myself! :cool:

[HoustonCartFan]

I like to preach to the choir! :)

[bblocker68]

I agree with IndyCar, but CART had Lola's, Reynard's, Swift's, Penske's, Eagle's etc. No, they all didn't race at the same time, but many of them were together on the track in different season's.

BTW, I would love to see ALL of the new chassis concepts on the track together.

[px400r]

I agree with IndyCar, but CART had Lola's, Reynard's, Swift's, Penske's, Eagle's etc. No, they all didn't race at the same time, but many of them were together on the track in different season's.

BTW, I would love to see ALL of the new chassis concepts on the track together.

While there have been many chassis raced in CART/CCWS, for most of those years, one chassis was used by most teams. For example, in the mid to late 90s, CART had Reynards, Penskes, Swifts, Eagles, and Lolas. But most everyone campaigned Reynards while only one (or sometimes two) teams ran the others. Sooner or later, everyone gravitates to the winning marque.

[Wilf]

I don't want to see just one chassis on the track. I would like to see all these concepts race against each other. Having everyone in the same chassis is just plain boring to me. I didn't like it in CART or in IndyCar.

I think they should just publish an engine spec, aero spec and set an NFL like budget cap. Bring back technological creativity and let the smartest team/best driver combo win.

How many manufacturers have carbon fibre facilities large enough for an IndyCar or do you want to go back to the carnage that was indycar prior to the adoption of composit tubs?

Only three manufacturers participated the last time specs were published and two went away because all of the teams gravitated to the Dallara. Do you think there are more manufacturers interested in this economy?

There is a better chance of getting your wish when it comes to engines but balancing output is another can of worms not to mention the loss of advertising the league required the engine badger buy.

Every wish has its trade offs which have to be considered.

[garyshell]

I don't want to see just one chassis on the track. I would like to see all these concepts race against each other. Having everyone in the same chassis is just plain boring to me. I didn't like it in CART or in IndyCar.

I think they should just publish an engine spec, aero spec and set an NFL like budget cap. Bring back technological creativity and let the smartest team/best driver combo win.


We would all love to see that, but it's real easy to call for such things without so much as a scintilla of a suggestion as to how you would propose to make it happen.

All of the manufacturers have made it abundantly clear that they need to recoup their development costs in the short term (no amortizing this across several years). Those costs are huge. If we only have 21 drivers on the grid and let's say there are two cars per driver (another bit of wishful thinking) we have a market for 42 cars. Spread that over three manufactures and each looks to have a market for 14 cars total. And they will put their development costs over that initial order of 14. That makes your "budget cap" pretty much laughable. And then we repeat the same exercise for the engines.

None of this even begins to take into account the "migration to the winning equipment" syndrome. Out of the box lets say chassis x and engine Y prove to be total dogs. Now the team who went with those has their sponsors breathing down their neck for better results so they get the TV exposure they demand. So the team has to look at scrapping the initial investment and buy the "winning combo". And the costs just went through the roof.

Back in the day when this sort of scenario was played out every year, the infield was rife with hospitality tents from deep pocket companies willing to fund this sort of madness. Now, in case you haven't been to the track in a while, what tents that are there are wayo mucho smaller.

So now that I have set the stage, what's your SOLUTION to this problem you seem so ready to foist upon the teams? Because don't forget it is the TEAMS that would be most affected by such a move.

As much as I'd love to see multiple chassis and engines, I don't see how it is economically feasible and thus far no one has stepped up to explain how it possibly could be. All I have ever heard is "budget cap". Yeah, right... whatever.


Gary

[SarahFan]

We would all love to see that, but it's real easy to call for such things without so much as a scintilla of a suggestion as to how you would propose to make it happen.




Gary

solution

Indycar sets a max/min height weight width length and madates a set of safety standards.....

then sanctions races......


simple

[garyshell]

solution

Indycar sets a max/min height weight width length and madates a set of safety standards.....

then sanctions races......


simple


Did you even bother to read what I wrote? How do you propose that this idea becomes ECONOMICALLY viable? As things stand right now, your "solution" would be the instantaneous death knell for the series and every single team.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? How do you propose that this idea becomes ECONOMICALLY viable? As things stand right now, your "solution" would be the instantaneous death knell for the series and every single team.

Gary

why?

every team already has a car that meets the standards does it not....

not to mention the DPO1's, and pretty much every car that ran a indycar or Cart/champcar race since the early nineties

[Mark in Oshawa]

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? How do you propose that this idea becomes ECONOMICALLY viable? As things stand right now, your "solution" would be the instantaneous death knell for the series and every single team.

Gary

Gary, it isn't the IRL's job to make sure Dallara or Panoz makes money.

Ken is right. Set the parameters and the free market can figure it out. We may end up with nothing but Dallaras, just like at one point we had nothing but Reynards or Lola's, but at least it would be the free market talking. Build the best race car, you sell lots of them. The whole problem with mandating one chassis is if you pick a dog, then people wont like it. The Dallara was/is a dog in the opinion of the fans.

Put a set of parameters out there and let teams bring what they want. On street tracks a DP-01 would be better. On the ovals another model might work better. Let the teams figure out what they want and develop their cars. Take away the control over everything down to the fasteners holding the bodywork to the colour of the rear win as it does NOW.....

[garyshell]

every team already has a car that meets the standards does it not....

not to mention the DPO1's, and pretty much every car that ran a indycar or Cart/champcar race since the early nineties


Interesting idea. Rather than calling for a new chassis with multiple manufacturers, which up to this point I think has been the entire focus, bring back some of the earlier stuff. I can't take issue with it, except to say I think anything from the IRL side of this equation other than the current Dallara has already been relegated to the not the "winning combo" category. I don't think any other IRL chassis is viable. They all proved to be slower than the current one. But that's not to say if you open this up, as you suggested, that someone might be able to do something innovative to the one of them and make it viable.

RE: the DP01, I think we know it would not work on an oval as it is, because of the aerodynamic issues with the ill fitting body panels. Not that it could not remedied. But I don't know if Panoz is up to that task given the comments Paul Tracy made recently about this issue.

Gary

[Wilf]

why?

every team already has a car that meets the standards does it not....

not to mention the DPO1's, and pretty much every car that ran a indycar or Cart/champcar race since the early nineties

Let"s see, you need a DP01 for the street circuits, a Lola for which there are no parts for the road courses and speedways and what to meet the crash tests?

It's simple, but no answer.

[garyshell]

Gary, it isn't the IRL's job to make sure Dallara or Panoz makes money.

Ken is right. Set the parameters and the free market can figure it out. We may end up with nothing but Dallaras, just like at one point we had nothing but Reynards or Lola's, but at least it would be the free market talking. Build the best race car, you sell lots of them. The whole problem with mandating one chassis is if you pick a dog, then people wont like it. The Dallara was/is a dog in the opinion of the fans.

Put a set of parameters out there and let teams bring what they want. On street tracks a DP-01 would be better. On the ovals another model might work better. Let the teams figure out what they want and develop their cars. Take away the control over everything down to the fasteners holding the bodywork to the colour of the rear win as it does NOW.....


I never suggested it was the IRL's job. However, their job IS to make sure the series is viable. And when they make a decision, they need to be sure that it still allows four different parties to make money. The teams, the venues, the sponsors and the manufacturers. If they make a decision that makes it impossible for any one of them to make a profit, poof the whole thing goes away.

The risk is not that you end up with only Dallara's. The risk is you end up with NOTHING.

Gary

[SarahFan]

I never suggested it was the IRL's job. However, their job IS to make sure the series is viable. And when they make a decision, they need to be sure that it still allows four different parties to make money. The teams, the venues, the sponsors and the manufacturers. If they make a decision that makes it impossible for any one of them to make a profit, poof the whole thing goes away.

The risk is not that you end up with only Dallara's. The risk is you end up with NOTHING.

Gary

this is where we disagree.....its not the IRL's job...its the IRl's job to mandates safety standards within a certain perameter of racecar and then to sanction the races.....


let the suppliers, manufactures teams etc figure out how to make there individual Biz make money?

[SarahFan]

Let"s see, you need a DP01 for the street circuits, a Lola for which there are no parts for the road courses and speedways and what to meet the crash tests?

It's simple, but no answer.

sure it is....

if gannassi thinks he can spend 5 Mil fielding a Deltawing (and it meets the basic specs and safety standards) and win the 500 and the championship then by all means let him....


but if Coyne and roll out his 97' reynard and put Unser Jr behind the wheel for prizemoney..... then why not let him?

[garyshell]

this is where we disagree.....its not the IRL's job...its the IRl's job to mandates safety standards within a certain perameter of racecar and then to sanction the races.....


let the suppliers, manufactures teams etc figure out how to make there individual Biz make money?

Yes it is where we disagree. In a perfect world your idea would have merit. But we live in reality.

If the IRL were to say tomorrow that the new standard for the IRL is a three wheeled vehicle with 4000 horsepower and no wings. How long would the series be around? So why don't they do this sort of thing? Because they know they have to make rules that are viable and do allow for the participants (all four constituencies I mentioned before) to all make a profit. They are at least smart enough to know if any one of those groups fails the whole thing comes down like a house of cards.

The same thing is true in any business today, no company can make a set of rules for their supplier without taking into account the fact that the rule MIGHT drive the supplier out of business. All businesses live and die by their partnerships, the IRL is no different. I am NOT saying they need to figure out how the partners can make money. They just need to be sure they allow them too. There is a difference.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Yes it is where we disagree. In a perfect world your idea would have merit. But we live in reality.

If the IRL were to say tomorrow that the new standard for the IRL is a three wheeled vehicle with 4000 horsepower and no wings. How long would the series be around? So why don't they do this sort of thing? Because they know they have to make rules that are viable and do allow for the participants (all four constituencies I mentioned before) to all make a profit. They are at least smart enough to know if any one of those groups fails the whole thing comes down like a house of cards.

The same thing is true in any business today, no company can make a set of rules for their supplier without taking into account the fact that the rule MIGHT drive the supplier out of business. All businesses live and die by their partnerships, the IRL is no different. I am NOT saying they need to figure out how the partners can make money. They just need to be sure they allow them too. There is a difference.

Gary

and what exactly about laying out simple specs would make it impossible for a supplier to make money?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gary, the series sets the rules, and Dallara, Panoz, Lola or whomever puts together a business plan to make money building cars to fit in those rules. If they cant, they wont. You tell car makers they will make all the cars for a series, and you are giving them the right to make money. Never mind the IRL isn't...and the series is suffering, you are advocating one chassis because you worry about their viability. No one will put a gun to their head to build race cars under Ken's scenario. They can figure out if it works or not. I don't like legislating car builders...sorry, it doesn't work for me.

[Mark in Oshawa]

and what exactly about laying out simple specs would make it impossible for a supplier to make money?

he is worried they have to make a minimum number of chassis to justify getting in the game. Carbon fiber technology is dropping in cost every day....I think the mother of necessity will drive costs down. If Lola wants to sell race cars in America, they will just have to figure out how to make money after 10 cars, as opposed to 40. Ditto for anyone else. Ken, you and I are advocating the free market will do the job, and Gary doesn't want to trust it. The problem is, a monopoly or restricted formula hasn't worked either...and it is that model in the IRL that has held sway up to now.

[garyshell]

and what exactly about laying out simple specs would make it impossible for a supplier to make money?

Nothing at all. I never claimed it did. But if those rules meant that in order for the manufacturers to make money, they would have to charge a price that prevented the teams from making any money the whole game is over.

We already see that in front of us right now. The manufacturers have all said, that if a new chassis is to be built they need a minimum number of cars to be ordered to make it viable. Why are they saying this? Because their marketing and production people put their heads together and crunched the numbers. They realized that if that minimum number was not met they would have to charge a price that was too high for their customers (the team owners) to absorb.

You and Mark seem to think that the rules don't have any effect on the rest of the food chain in the IRL and that they affect only the manufacturers. This stuff all trickles down like water, especially when we are dealing with the sort of economy we have right now. When the paddock was awash with cubic dollars like it was some years ago, none of this really mattered. Now one little tweak here or there can crumble the whole house of cards.

Gary

[garyshell]

he is worried they have to make a minimum number of chassis to justify getting in the game.

I am not worried about that... it is a fact. No manufacturer of any product, be it race cars or kitty litter can enter a market without first crunching the numbers to see first what sort of price elasticity that market has. Then determine a target price and market share. If those numbers don't equal the cost of production setup plus the actual production plus some ROI, then they walk away.

Like it or not, there is a minimum chassis count they have to sell. That is the free market way. I am advocating it too. But what the two of you are forgetting is that there is a limited market for their goods. 42 cars give or take a few, right now. 66 for a field of 33 at Indy. This is not a traditional free market at all. It is an artificially limited market.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Seemed to work for the first 90 or so years of Indy car racing

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am not worried about that... it is a fact. No manufacturer of any product, be it race cars or kitty litter can enter a market without first crunching the numbers to see first what sort of price elasticity that market has. Then determine a target price and market share. If those numbers don't equal the cost of production setup plus the actual production plus some ROI, then they walk away.

Like it or not, there is a minimum chassis count they have to sell. That is the free market way. I am advocating it too. But what the two of you are forgetting is that there is a limited market for their goods. 42 cars give or take a few, right now. 66 for a field of 33 at Indy. This is not a traditional free market at all. It is an artificially limited market.

Gary

Gary, it always was. In 1990 it was limited, yet we had 3 chassis out there to pick from. The economy of scale was different and the price of cars was different, and the numbers were different. That said, The IRL can put the box out there, and tell anyone who wants to play to build a car for that box. The chassis supplier who builds a decent prototype will likely get all the business, but why should the IRL artificially restrict the players? The IRL runs the series, let the car markers make their business plan. At some point, you micromanage yourself into a hole.

[garyshell]

Gary, it always was. In 1990 it was limited, yet we had 3 chassis out there to pick from. The economy of scale was different and the price of cars was different, and the numbers were different. That said, The IRL can put the box out there, and tell anyone who wants to play to build a car for that box. The chassis supplier who builds a decent prototype will likely get all the business, but why should the IRL artificially restrict the players? The IRL runs the series, let the car markers make their business plan. At some point, you micromanage yourself into a hole.


Don't know what the entry count was for the 500 in 1990, but I found this about 1985 which had numbers for some other years. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/04/sports/only-48-entries-made-for-indy-500.html

But my point is comparing the count then and now is apples to oranges as is the startup cost to producing a new chassis then versus now. Higher startup costs and lower market numbers to amortize those costs over make for a very different situation.

The IRL did put out a call for chassis from any and all comers and guess who it was that asked for this idea of minimum numbers? Hint: It was not the IRL.

Gary

[garyshell]

Seemed to work for the first 90 or so years of Indy car racing

Sure did. Times changed. Startup costs went way up and potential market for the chassis went way down. What worked then no longer does now.

As I just said to Mark, the IRL went to the free market and it was that market that said they needed minimum numbers.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Sure did. Times changed. Startup costs went way up and potential market for the chassis went way down. What worked then no longer does now.

As I just said to Mark, the IRL went to the free market and it was that market that said they needed minimum numbers.

Gary

Wrong Gary....

What worked then worked


The current model is broken

[Mark in Oshawa]

Don't know what the entry count was for the 500 in 1990, but I found this about 1985 which had numbers for some other years. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/04/sports/only-48-entries-made-for-indy-500.html

But my point is comparing the count then and now is apples to oranges as is the startup cost to producing a new chassis then versus now. Higher startup costs and lower market numbers to amortize those costs over make for a very different situation.

The IRL did put out a call for chassis from any and all comers and guess who it was that asked for this idea of minimum numbers? Hint: It was not the IRL.

Gary

Not disagreeing about the numbers being different, but the chassis owners don't get a monopoly. As far as I can tell, the IRL isn't there to ensure Dallara or Panoz makes a profit...

The people making the cars have to find ways to reduce costs in their side of things. They have ZERO incentive once they get their monopoly....

[garyshell]

As far as I can tell, the IRL isn't there to ensure Dallara or Panoz makes a profit...

You are right they are there to ensure that the series survives. But the series can't survive unless the likes of a Panoz or Dallara makes a profit. It is a symbiotic relationship. You can't have one without the other.


The people making the cars have to find ways to reduce costs in their side of things. They have ZERO incentive once they get their monopoly....

It's easy to say that they have to find a way. It's quite another for them to actually do it.

I agree the incentive to control costs does go away if there is a monopoly.

Gary

[garyshell]

Wrong Gary....

What worked then worked


The current model is broken

No question the current model is broken. But the old model no longer applies. It worked in a day of larger market for the chassis, less setup cost, less production cost per unit and much more cash available from sponsors. Those days are long gone right now.

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

You are right they are there to ensure that the series survives. But the series can't survive unless the likes of a Panoz or Dallara makes a profit. It is a symbiotic relationship. You can't have one without the other.



It's easy to say that they have to find a way. It's quite another for them to actually do it.

I agree the incentive to control costs does go away if there is a monopoly.

Gary

The problem is Gary, the IRL isn't responsible for their profits. Panoz or Swift or Lola doesn't guarntee the IRL a profit, so the opposite has to also be the same. The car builders are not stupid. They know if they cannot make money at 16 cars a year, then they wont play. You will end up with one maker maybe while the others stay out until better economic times. THe whole thing is, the IRL has to be about techinical evolution again. This stagnant formula hasn't worked, and if you go with one car make, you are right back there again. There HAS to be the threat or actual opening in the rules for any car maker to come in. If Lola wants to build cars at a loss to compete with BAT or Dallara, so be it. If Roger Penske wants to build his own tubs, have at it.

It should NEVER be the job of the IRL to dictate everyone drive Dallara's with Honda's. They have ended up there thru attrition, but now that other builders want in, they are being kept out until some great decision is made for 2012. It better not be picking one car make or you can count a lot of people to just walk away as fans.

The constant threat of something new hitting the track is what keep uncertainty and excitement in the sport. Right now, you can bet your check that the races will be all won by either Penske or Ganassi. They have the newest Dallaras and have fine tuned them be best. IF they had to contend with another builder, or a new team with a new idea, it would add spice.

The car builders build cars. IF they do so at a loss, it isn't the IRL's job to fix that. If enough car builders pass, one will jump back in. Somehow, someone will find cars to race....

[call_me_andrew]

I don't want to see just one chassis on the track. I would like to see all these concepts race against each other. Having everyone in the same chassis is just plain boring to me. I didn't like it in CART or in IndyCar.

Yup, that's exactly what life is like in a perfect world. A perfect world also has no war, poverty, or famine. So we don't live there.

[SarahFan]

No question the current model is broken. But the old model no longer applies. It worked in a day of larger market for the chassis, less setup cost, less production cost per unit and much more cash available from sponsors. Those days are long gone right now.

Gary


Hogwash..... You sound like Brian barnhardt...

He's part of the problem also

[SarahFan]

just curios.....is there any race fan here curios about which team can win the 500 and the championship the cheapest?

[garyshell]

Hogwash..... You sound like Brian barnhardt...

He's part of the problem also


Ok, then how would YOU propose to have three chassis manufacturers amortize the cost of design, production setup and production of the chassis over a field of 21 drivers. Don't forget to take into account the limited, or even proposed CAPPED, budgets that the teams can afford. And don't forget to take into account the high production setup costs associated with a carbon fiber chassis.

I anxiously await your solution or your typical "that's not my job" answer. The manufacturers have pretty much all stated they can't do it. But you are convinced it's hogwash.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Ok, then how would YOU propose to have three chassis manufacturers amortize the cost of design, production setup and production of the chassis over a field of 21 drivers. Don't forget to take into account the limited, or even proposed CAPPED, budgets that the teams can afford. And don't forget to take into account the high production setup costs associated with a carbon fiber chassis.

I anxiously await your solution or your typical "that's not my job" answer. The manufacturers have pretty much all stated they can't do it. But you are convinced it's hogwash.

Gary



The folks that say it can't be done are......

Suprise... The same ones in line for the monopoly


And guys like you buy it hook line and sinker......again no suprise considering your posting history

[garyshell]

The folks that say it can't be done are......

Suprise... The same ones in line for the monopoly


And guys like you buy it hook line and sinker......again no suprise considering your posting history


Ahh, so you have no proposed solution. To use your phrase, "no suprise considering your posting history".

And what if these folks really are telling the truth? Don't you think its a bit odd that ALL the suppliers seems to say the same thing? I guess it's some vast conspiracy then. You might want to start looking for the black helicopters. They could be there any minute now.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Ahh, so you have no proposed solution. To use your phrase, "no suprise considering your posting history".

And what if these folks really are telling the truth? Don't you think its a bit odd that ALL the suppliers seems to say the same thing? I guess it's some vast conspiracy then. You might want to start looking for the black helicopters. They could be there any minute now.

Gary



I've already stated my solution...


And of coarse there all sayin the same thing..... Because they all want the monopoly...... No conspiracy ....

[call_me_andrew]

just curios.....is there any race fan here curios about which team can win the 500 and the championship the cheapest?

I am. Every time there's an oval race I wonder if this is the week that Penske and Ganassi both fail.

[SarahFan]

I am. Every time there's an oval race I wonder if this is the week that Penske and Ganassi both fail.

Or is that just rooting for the underdog?

Ymmv..... But IMO that's different than being interested in who can win the cheapest

[garyshell]

I've already stated my solution...

Except you didn't propose a solution at all. Your post only called for the IRL to just set the specs without any regard to the ramifications. That only provided the stipulations that presented the problem in the first place.


And of coarse there all sayin the same thing..... Because they all want the monopoly...... No conspiracy ....

Sounds a lot like the folks who insist that men didn't walk on the moon. They too seem to think it is possible to have a whole hoard of folks in on the fakery. I find it a bit hard to believe that none of those companies would be unwilling to call the others bluff, if they all were lying.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Except you didn't propose a solution at all. Your post only called for the IRL to just set the specs without any regard to the ramifications. That only provided the stipulations that presented the problem in the first place.



Sounds a lot like the folks who insist that men didn't walk on the moon. They too seem to think it is possible to have a whole hoard of folks in on the fakery. I find it a bit hard to believe that none of those companies would be unwilling to call the others bluff, if they all were lying.

Gary


Come Gary..... I proposed a solution that worked for decades...... The ramificatons you seem to be supporting is .24 tv ratings

and I don't think anyone is lieing ...... I think they want a monopoly..... If I was swift or bat or dallara so would I .....


And noone is lieing...

[garyshell]

Come Gary..... I proposed a solution that worked for decades...... The ramificatons you seem to be supporting is .24 tv ratings

and I don't think anyone is lieing ...... I think they want a monopoly..... If I was swift or bat or dallara so would I .....


And noone is lieing...


If you want to keep living in the past and ignoring the fact that things (from the startup and production costs to the number of cars over which those costs can be amortized) are VERY different today more power too you.

I think it's laughable to think that all five proposed manufacturers would be unwilling to call the bluff if any one of them can amortize the costs over a small number of cars AND do so at a price the teams can afford. If we had only two in the fight, this might be plausible. But five? Oh, please.

Gary

[SarahFan]

If you want to keep living in the past and ignoring the fact that things (from the startup and production costs to the number of cars over which those costs can be amortized) are VERY different today more power too you.

I think it's laughable to think that all five proposed manufacturers would be unwilling to call the bluff if any one of them can amortize the costs over a small number of cars AND do so at a price the teams can afford. If we had only two in the fight, this might be plausible. But five? Oh, please.

Gary



What's different today than 10 15 or 20 years ago ... Be specific


And why is this such a struggle for you ....... If they know the irl is going to award a bid to a single supplier why would any of them jepordize a possible monopoly?

[garyshell]

If you want to keep living in the past and ignoring the fact that things (from the startup and production costs to the number of cars over which those costs can be amortized) are VERY different today more power too you.

I think it's laughable to think that all five proposed manufacturers would be unwilling to call the bluff if any one of them can amortize the costs over a small number of cars AND do so at a price the teams can afford. If we had only two in the fight, this might be plausible. But five? Oh, please.

Gary


What's different today than 10 15 or 20 years ago ... Be specific


And why is this such a struggle for you ....... If they know the irl is going to award a bid to a single supplier why would any of them jepordize a possible monopoly?


How much more specific can I be? It's right there in the message you quoted. The setup costs are much higher now than 20 years ago. The unit costs are higher. Do you want me to quote the difference in carbon fiber autoclaves or what?

But the biggest difference is the number of cars. You are calling for multiple chassis. If you divide the pie up, the car count per manufacturer goes way down. And all of this is compounded by the uncertainty of a market for the cars beyond a single year. Who knows how long the IRL will be around?

I don't recall the IRL saying they were going to award a single bidder. I recall the suppliers all saying they need this to make the numbers work.

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok, then how would YOU propose to have three chassis manufacturers amortize the cost of design, production setup and production of the chassis over a field of 21 drivers. Don't forget to take into account the limited, or even proposed CAPPED, budgets that the teams can afford. And don't forget to take into account the high production setup costs associated with a carbon fiber chassis.

I anxiously await your solution or your typical "that's not my job" answer. The manufacturers have pretty much all stated they can't do it. But you are convinced it's hogwash.

Gary

Gary, Ken's point is valid. The car makers say it cant be done? Great, so let one or two drop out. I don't mind there is ONE supplier if they all drop out LEAVING one. As long as the door is open for a Roger Penske to phone up Lola or Swift and say "I will pay what it takes for 6 cars" and Roger will get his six cars, then I don't care.

Where you keep missing the point Gary, is it isn't in the IRL's interest to restrict the number of chassis to ONE. It may happen, and I can live with that knowing that out there, another chassis manufacturer can come in with another design. It is their nickel, and their idea, but they should NOT be kept out if they build a car that will pass the scrutineers.

You keep worrying about the economic viablity for the manufacturers. SOMEONE will find it viable...but they are not going to tell you if you are going to maybe give them a monopoly. This isn't Formula Atlantic, or Formula BMW or Formula Renault. Once upon a time, Indycars meant something in terms of variety, technological innovation and aesthtics. The last 8 years have been just a joke on those scores. If you look like a Spec series, you will be treated by the public as a spec series. It isn't our jobs as fans to care how it happens, and it isn't the IRL's job to make sure ONE manufacturer makes money at the exclusion by RULES of the others..

[Mark in Oshawa]

By the way Gary, I DO understand about the economy of scale changing with the cost of making tubs now, but you cannot convince me that a)the cost of doing that isn't coming down and b) the companies will SAY they need to make 40 at a time to make money, when we both know that they will all say that if they think they can grab the monopoly. You leave it open, you watch how fast they try to reduce their bottom line, and how few cars they actually can make money with. I suspect it is less than 20....

[SarahFan]

How much more specific can I be? It's right there in the message you quoted. The setup costs are much higher now than 20 years ago. The unit costs are higher. Do you want me to quote the difference in carbon fiber autoclaves or what?

But the biggest difference is the number of cars. You are calling for multiple chassis. If you divide the pie up, the car count per manufacturer goes way down. And all of this is compounded by the uncertainty of a market for the cars beyond a single year. Who knows how long the IRL will be around?

I don't recall the IRL saying they were going to award a single bidder. I recall the suppliers all saying they need this to make the numbers work.

Gary

be specific gary...come on, put up or shut up


exactly which start-up costs are more expensive today than a decade ago?

how much will a unit cost today vs a decade ago?

and yes Id like you to quote the cost of carbon fiber today vs a decade or two ago

I understand that spreading engineering cost etc over 50 or 60 vs 2 or 20 helps.......but exactly what is different today than 1995/6 that would preclude a builder from making money?

[nigelred5]

I agree with Mark, if a manufacturer decides they can't make it work with a low production run fine, but don't exclude the ones that don't come to that same conclusion. Reynard and Lola and penske used to have new designs every Year. It's called business. Monopoly improves nothing. Yes, I know teams could afford that back then, but the options were still there. Make the rules so they don't HAVE to build a new car every year. If they need economies of scale, then guarantee the regs for say ten years and limit the use of carbon fibre to the tub. The Atlantic cars did just that. Sure it's heavier, but the current car is a tank anyway. Allow more hp and reduce weight by making the car smaller. If they choose to go with another single make car, then don't even bother. Name me one successful single make series with any sort of respectable world wide tv and advertising numbers. Gp2 rides the f1 coat tail but would fail as a stand alone.

[garyshell]

Gary, Ken's point is valid. The car makers say it cant be done? Great, so let one or two drop out. I don't mind there is ONE supplier if they all drop out LEAVING one. As long as the door is open for a Roger Penske to phone up Lola or Swift and say "I will pay what it takes for 6 cars" and Roger will get his six cars, then I don't care.

Where you keep missing the point Gary, is it isn't in the IRL's interest to restrict the number of chassis to ONE. It may happen, and I can live with that knowing that out there, another chassis manufacturer can come in with another design. It is their nickel, and their idea, but they should NOT be kept out if they build a car that will pass the scrutineers.

You keep worrying about the economic viablity for the manufacturers. SOMEONE will find it viable...but they are not going to tell you if you are going to maybe give them a monopoly. This isn't Formula Atlantic, or Formula BMW or Formula Renault. Once upon a time, Indycars meant something in terms of variety, technological innovation and aesthtics. The last 8 years have been just a joke on those scores. If you look like a Spec series, you will be treated by the public as a spec series. It isn't our jobs as fans to care how it happens, and it isn't the IRL's job to make sure ONE manufacturer makes money at the exclusion by RULES of the others..

Mark I never missed that point. I have not suggested the IRL should start the process saying they should pick only one. I have suggested that they might need to agree to a minimum order requirement from a supplier.

I am not sure why you and Ken can't see that a minimum order requirement is a realistic request. This is standard operating procedure in a lot of business. I can't go to the grocery store and buy one egg or even four.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the "spec series" aspect matters one iota. It matters to us gear heads, it does not to the expanded audience we seek. Or to the sponsors we need to achieve that.

Gary

[garyshell]

be specific gary...come on, put up or shut up


exactly which start-up costs are more expensive today than a decade ago?

how much will a unit cost today vs a decade ago?

and yes Id like you to quote the cost of carbon fiber today vs a decade or two ago

I understand that spreading engineering cost etc over 50 or 60 vs 2 or 20 helps.......but exactly what is different today than 1995/6 that would preclude a builder from making money?


You have Google, look the price up yourself. I'm done with your pedantic musings.

Gary

[garyshell]

I agree with Mark, if a manufacturer decides they can't make it work with a low production run fine, but don't exclude the ones that don't come to that same conclusion. Reynard and Lola and penske used to have new designs every Year. It's called business. Monopoly improves nothing. Yes, I know teams could afford that back then, but the options were still there. Make the rules so they don't HAVE to build a new car every year. If they need economies of scale, then guarantee the regs for say ten years and limit the use of carbon fibre to the tub. The Atlantic cars did just that. Sure it's heavier, but the current car is a tank anyway. Allow more hp and reduce weight by making the car smaller. If they choose to go with another single make car, then don't even bother. Name me one successful single make series with any sort of respectable world wide tv and advertising numbers. Gp2 rides the f1 coat tail but would fail as a stand alone.

I agree, I have never suggested they should. I have suggested that they may need to accept a minimum order requirement. If they can do that AND allow other suppliers, fine.


Ten years is a nice idea but only if the supplier things the IRL will be around for ten years. I suspect most will want to amortize all startup costs in year one. If I was the CEO of a potential supplier, I would insist on it, given the current state of affairs and the sisters now being "in charge".

Gary

[downtowndeco]

Gary's point is correct. Unless money is no object and the item is needed at pretty much any cost (a part for a new bomber the pentagon has ordered for example) every supplier has a certain number of units they will need to move on an item to come out ahead on it.

It's simple, it's basic, it's commom knowledge and I just can't see why some here can't get it. It's like you're living on "Fantasy Island" or something.

"Look boss, De plane de plane!". "Ah yes Tattoo. Every week we have another group of guests that come to visit from the real world who still yearn for the day of a booming economy, Paul Tracy being champ, fields of 26 every weekend, multiple chassis manufacturers, when sponsors were plentiful and Tony George had not yet decided to call the owners bluff. They are a simple, naive group, and mean well, but are just not living in reality."

That's the difference here. Some can accept reality, others can not. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject because I just watched Gary waste 2 hours of his life he'll never get back talking to a brick wall.

[SarahFan]

You have Google, look the price up yourself. I'm done with your pedantic musings.

Gary


Typical......

[SarahFan]

Gary's point is correct. Unless money is no object and the item is needed at pretty much any cost (a part for a new bomber the pentagon has ordered for example) every supplier has a certain number of units they will need to move on an item to come out ahead on it.

It's simple, it's basic, it's commom knowledge and I just can't see why some here can't get it. It's like you're living on "Fantasy Island" or something.

"Look boss, De plane de plane!". "Ah yes Tattoo. Every week we have another group of guests that come to visit from the real world who still yearn for the day of a booming economy, Paul Tracy being champ, fields of 26 every weekend, multiple chassis manufacturers, when sponsors were plentiful and Tony George had not yet decided to call the owners bluff. They are a simple, naive group, and mean well, but are just not living in reality."

That's the difference here. Some can accept reality, others can not. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject because I just watched Gary waste 2 hours of his life he'll never get back talking to a brick wall.

but what has changed in the past 8 years that changes what worked for decades?

gary claims start up costs?....

so be specific exactly what start up costs?

stop drinking the kool-aid and put up.....

[px400r]

"Look boss, De plane de plane!". "Ah yes Tattoo. Every week we have another group of guests that come to visit from the real world who still yearn for the day of a booming economy, Paul Tracy being champ, fields of 26 every weekend, multiple chassis manufacturers, when sponsors were plentiful and Tony George had not yet decided to call the owners bluff. They are a simple, naive group, and mean well, but are just not living in reality."

That's the difference here. Some can accept reality, others can not. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject because I just watched Gary waste 2 hours of his life he'll never get back talking to a brick wall.

So what you're saying is that you have accepted the reality of what Tony George has done to the sport? That's fine by me.

What others here are doing is simply expounding their ideas to get the sport back to where we feel it belongs. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

[nigelred5]

Fine, so one or two feel that they need to sell every car they are going to sell then show me where that guarantees they will eack sell 20 car? Is the irl going to do another cc deal and guarantee a run of 40 cars, even if there are no guarantees there will be anyone to race them?

If it's another ugly spec chassis, one engine series for another 5 years, I'm finally done with indycars.

I just booked my tickets to visit family in Germany the last week of august. My tix to Spa are first up after a little dinner. When the ics starts running cars worth watching or thet start racing somewhere reasonably near me, I might spend some cash to see them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark I never missed that point. I have not suggested the IRL should start the process saying they should pick only one. I have suggested that they might need to agree to a minimum order requirement from a supplier.

I am not sure why you and Ken can't see that a minimum order requirement is a realistic request. This is standard operating procedure in a lot of business. I can't go to the grocery store and buy one egg or even four.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the "spec series" aspect matters one iota. It matters to us gear heads, it does not to the expanded audience we seek. Or to the sponsors we need to achieve that.

Gary

Gary, if they don't hand the monopoly over to one manufacturer, then no one can guarntee how many chassis will be ordered because if the teams can choose, they will choose on their own. When a manufacturer says "I want a mininmum order so I can make a profit in the first year", that isn't the IRL's business. When you tell me that the companies need to have a minimum order, the IRL cannot give them that info. The teams have the right to choose. If Dallara is told by the IRL we will ensure you have 20 cars ordered, and the Lola is the car the teams want because it is better ( a VERY likely scenario), then the IRL is screwed.....

You always need to take that next step. You said you didn't advocate a monopoly. Fine, then don't be telling team owners they cant buy a chassis or have to buy a chassis from someone the IRL made a promise they cant keep to. Right now, you have just come down on both sides of the fence...Saying we have to promise a manufacturer orders, and then say you are not advocating a monopoly.

The hard core fans are starting to bail on this series because of this sort of manipulation. Tony George created the IRL because he wanted to run his own show, and stage manage everything. Saw how well THAT works didn't we? This crap is more of the same.....

They go to a manufacturer, they either hand em a monopoly or tell them they will have no say in what teams order. There is the rules, build a car to it...or don't. At some point, someone will jump into the fray, but it isn't the IRL's job to ensure them a profit. They cant make money for the teams or the promotors at times...why the hell would they want to ensure Lola or Dallara are making money?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gary's point is correct. Unless money is no object and the item is needed at pretty much any cost (a part for a new bomber the pentagon has ordered for example) every supplier has a certain number of units they will need to move on an item to come out ahead on it.

It's simple, it's basic, it's commom knowledge and I just can't see why some here can't get it. It's like you're living on "Fantasy Island" or something..
Deco, I get why the companies want to make money and how it works. So does Ken. It isn't the IRL's job to promise the companies either. They build cars for a series, they have to decide how many they likely will sell for a car that fits in the rules. It is NOT the job of the IRL to dictate an order.WE are not living on Fantasy Island, it is you who lives in some sort of socialist paradise where everyone is guartneed a successful outcome?


"Look boss, De plane de plane!". "Ah yes Tattoo. Every week we have another group of guests that come to visit from the real world who still yearn for the day of a booming economy, Paul Tracy being champ, fields of 26 every weekend, multiple chassis manufacturers, when sponsors were plentiful and Tony George had not yet decided to call the owners bluff. They are a simple, naive group, and mean well, but are just not living in reality.".CART's health in the 90's was just fine and what killed them was a rival organization taking away half their base of fans, TV money and sponsor interest. Last I looked, Tony did that and his calling their bluff was the worst possible thing for this sport. I guess you want to polish Tony's picture and bow to it every day. Last I also looked, his own family kicked his sorry @ss to the curb, and they should have done it in 1994 and saved everyone a lot of pain and suffereing...


That's the difference here. Some can accept reality, others can not. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject because I just watched Gary waste 2 hours of his life he'll never get back talking to a brick wall.

Gary is a big boy, he can take it. Gary I respect for he and I usually agree. AS for arguing with Ken, well if you quit looking at Ken's personality as the issue, and read what he is saying, he is asking for people to not blindly take the word of a manufacturer. I don't doubt costs have changed, for unlike Ken, I can grasp why Gary is saying what he is, but I again repeat over and over, that the IRL isn't in this to make Dallara get their money back in the first 2 years.

The whole point of this new IRL chassis spec is to bring back some growth in the series from a technical stand point and put a new car on the track. If the IRL gives the teams only one chassis, you watch how much people get tired of it. Indycar racing isn't NOT healthy, and one of the reasons of many is because there is no growth on the technical side. There is no incentive for manufacturers to want to participate or want to jump in because Honda has the engine monopoly. There is no incentive for a Roger Penske or Carl Haas to really try to make a faster race car, because they are handcuffed. There is no difference really in the top cars because they are all prepped to the same standard. Sounds great right? It isn't working.......

People want new blood, new ideas, new interest and new ways of doing things. Like the COT is sort of going to be a dead end in NASCAR (their ratings are tailing off as many fans are unhappy with the COT), the one make and engine thing is slowly boring people to death.

We watched Indy cars because every May, we saw something radical.

Who can forget the Chapparal of Johnny Rutherford? Go back further, the innovation of the first Cosworth powered cars beating down the Offy's? The Turbine? The Lotus? The Cooper? Read about the history of this sport, and change is the one common factor until about 1997....and then we all got to watch basically 13 years of Dallaras with antique noses. I realize G force and a few engine choices were there, but they are gone now.....and the only people not liking it are the majority I suspect who walked away from this sport...

[V12]

I'm in the camp that wouldn't necessarily mind a field of identical cars, providing that situation came about as a result of one manufacturer doing a better job on the race track, and their opponents either becoming undesirable or just giving up. This is the situation we find in F3 which is 99.9% Dallara, it also occured with Lola CART/ChampCar, and, many people forget, the current Dallara in the IRL. This was not originally mandated as a spec car, and it only became the only car in the field when Fernandez and Rahal gave up on the Panoz. I would actually prefer this scenario than say Lola winning a supply deal and having their two "performance balanaced" different visual designs in the field (I still don't see how that will work, how will the guarantee absolute equality?) Often, where you are is less important than how you got there.

The idea of some sort of bidding process to select one supplier by regulation still doesn't sit with me though. Multiple chassis may not bring in extra fair-weather fans, but it won't lose any fans either. And going the other way will lose a few, for instance I'm proud to state the introduction of the Panoz DP01 formally killed my last interest in Champ Car a full year before the series actually folded, I didn't watch a single race in 2007. And the same will apply in 2012 if this thing actually goes ahead. The preceding Lola B2/00 may have been ubiquitous but, like the current Dallara, it actually had to beat some opposition on the track to get there, which made me respect it more.

Solutions? How about framing some parallel Indy Lights regs that allow the same basic tub to be used in both categories, that would theoretically double the pool, or even if not doubling it, it would increase it.

Maybe even investigate the licencing of the series name and the technical regulations for any prospective regional series, in Europe, Asia or elsewhere (without them actually being part of the main IndyCar series). There are so many spec series littered across the globe these days, and if they all came together under the umbrella of common technical regulations, while remaining separately sanctioned series, there would be enough of a market for more than one supplier to play. This is how Formula 3 remains viable as an open formula, there's the flagship Euroseries but also championships in Britain, Italy, Japan, and so on.

I'm not saying any of my ideas would be a magic bullet, and some might not be viable, but I haven't seen any evidence of any ideas being discussed or thought through, rather a simple resignation of "that's just the way it is", and it's spec-series or no series.

And while I do buy the economies of scale argument (I'm not a "brick wall" on this one), the danger is you then end up with the attitude of "well even when the economy's viable, who needs it anyway, after all fans only care about drivers don't they?" and "well it's actually more of a level playing field with a spec car so let's keep it that way forever!"

Anyway, wouldn't it be nice to have a thread discussing the various merits of the latest Lola, Dallara and Swift, or one on Roger Penske's ambitious new PCxx which he hopes will give him that "unfair advantage", or one on the secret radical new project by Chip Ganassi's chief engineer that Chip hopes will blow the opposition into the weeds, instead of threads discussing rubbish TV ratings and Danica Patrick's latest photo shoot?

[SarahFan]

I can grasp why Gary is saying what he is, ...

problem is gary made a repeated claim he couldnt support....then cried about

[Mark in Oshawa]

problem is gary made a repeated claim he couldnt support....then cried about

Ken, it was his opinion obviously. Last I looked, he was allowed to have one. He also wasn't crying in my opinion. He was just asked to provide information that no one really has outside of the manufacturers. His opinion, however isn't without some merit. Race cars are more expensive to build when you are needing an autoclave and building with Carbon fibre. That said, the break even point can be whatever Dallara or Lola tells you it is, or it could in reality be a lot less, which of course was our point.

[V12]

The million dollar question would have to be - if no spec car was mandated, would nobody turn up to play? Perhaps one way to do it would be to draft a set of regulations for which the current Dallara is eligible, then just lay back and see what happens. If nobody wants to design and build a new car, then we stay with what we have until somebody does. And yes, Penske and Ganassi could always spend their way to success, but they kind of do that anyway.

[SarahFan]

Ken, it was his opinion obviously. Last I looked, he was allowed to have one. He also wasn't crying in my opinion. He was just asked to provide information that no one really has outside of the manufacturers. His opinion, however isn't without some merit. Race cars are more expensive to build when you are needing an autoclave and building with Carbon fibre. That said, the break even point can be whatever Dallara or Lola tells you it is, or it could in reality be a lot less, which of course was our point.



nope... sorry mark...

he claimed start up costs were more expensive today than in the past...not opinion but as afact....been when asks to substantiate that claim he cried and hid under a rock

[SarahFan]

The million dollar question would have to be - if no spec car was mandated, would nobody turn up to play? Perhaps one way to do it would be to draft a set of regulations for which the current Dallara is eligible, then just lay back and see what happens. If nobody wants to design and build a new car, then we stay with what we have until somebody does. And yes, Penske and Ganassi could always spend their way to success, but they kind of do that anyway.


exactly

[garyshell]

nope... sorry mark...

he claimed start up costs were more expensive today than in the past...not opinion but as afact....been when asks to substantiate that claim he cried and hid under a rock

I didn't cry or hide under a rock. I said if you want the price of an autoclave or carbon fiber, look it up yourself.

Gary

[SarahFan]

I didn't cry or hide under a rock. I said if you want the price of an autoclave or carbon fiber, look it up yourself.

Gary

hey....you made the unsupported claims......

[px400r]

The million dollar question would have to be - if no spec car was mandated, would nobody turn up to play? Perhaps one way to do it would be to draft a set of regulations for which the current Dallara is eligible, then just lay back and see what happens. If nobody wants to design and build a new car, then we stay with what we have until somebody does. And yes, Penske and Ganassi could always spend their way to success, but they kind of do that anyway.

So in essence, you have what we have today.

And this is good because...?

[nigelred5]

No, what we have today is a series where no one is allowed to bring in a new or an old car or engine, even if they wanted to. If I wanted to come in with a 2000 spec Reynard Toyota and kick some Dallara ass, I couldn't.

[downtowndeco]

Could you run that 00 Reynard in F1? NASCAR? ALMS? Grand Am? NHRA? Indy Lights?

Please name the series you could run it in today other than "Fantasy League".


No, what we have today is a series where no one is allowed to bring in a new or an old car or engine, even if they wanted to. If I wanted to come in with a 2000 spec Reynard Toyota and kick some Dallara ass, I couldn't.

[garyshell]

hey....you made the unsupported claims......


Did you have any luck in your search to prove my opinion to be wrong?


Gary

[SarahFan]

I was curios so I peeked around the net and didn't find much ....nothing related to racecars

so I thru it out there for those in the know ...


*btw starter doesn't like links to other boards

[SarahFan]

Did you have any luck in your search to prove my opinion to be wrong?


Gary

Opinion?

Is that what it is now?

[SarahFan]

and stop sending me the FU pm's.......i'd really like to believe its beneath you

[Mark in Oshawa]

nope... sorry mark...

he claimed start up costs were more expensive today than in the past...not opinion but as afact....been when asks to substantiate that claim he cried and hid under a rock

Get off it Ken, this whole board is one big opinion with WAG's on the facts. I happen to agree with him to an extent it is more expensive to build a race car now than it was 20 years ago. I just don't have the numbers, but we both know Carbon Fiber technology is more money than steel and aluminum. It is why you don't see it in production cars.....you don't need a price list to figure THAT out. Our assertion was only that the manufacturers of race cars would play fast and loose with the break even point as a bargaining position.

[V12]

So in essence, you have what we have today.

And this is good because...?

Technically no, it would be more like what we had back in say, the 1990s. Or the 1890s for that matter. If someone wanted to try and develop a new car they could, if not, then we can still go racing. I know the current Dallara is not the most popular racing car, but as I said it is still the product of technical evolution rather than a spec tender, which is why to my mind it will always be better than a made-to-order spec car that follows it, in the same way that I considered the Panoz DP01 to be a downgrade on the Lola B2/00.

[px400r]

Technically no, it would be more like what we had back in say, the 1990s. Or the 1890s for that matter. If someone wanted to try and develop a new car they could, if not, then we can still go racing. I know the current Dallara is not the most popular racing car, but as I said it is still the product of technical evolution rather than a spec tender, which is why to my mind it will always be better than a made-to-order spec car that follows it, in the same way that I considered the Panoz DP01 to be a downgrade on the Lola B2/00.

Point taken. But the economic environment is nothing at all like the 90s. No one is paying $1 million for a small spot on the car, let alone the side pod.

IMO, the focus must be sharply cutting the cost to be competitive with Penske and Ganassi. I don't care if that is a spec car or open rules, or somewhere in between.

[nigelred5]

Could you run that 00 Reynard in F1? NASCAR? ALMS? Grand Am? NHRA? Indy Lights?

Please name the series you could run it in today other than "Fantasy League".

Euroboss.... ;)

CART always allowed previous years chassis. Remaining competetive generally drove teams to update the chassis or go to the newest specification, but they weren't forced to when a new one came out and it met the safety specs.

How did the little Lotus get into the 500? the turbine, 10 year old roadsters running the same offy as 20 years before that even.... open rules.

My point is, there are cars that are within the safety parameters of the current car, were powered by engines that would still match or exceed the current status, are as fast or faster than the Dallara, and would allow free open competition to smaller teams. don't force another POS on the people that want to compete in a car that has met the same formula in the last ten years.

[SarahFan]

Euroboss.... ;)

CART always allowed previous years chassis. Remaining competetive generally drove teams to update the chassis or go to the newest specification, but they weren't forced to when a new one came out and it met the safety specs.

How did the little Lotus get into the 500? the turbine, 10 year old roadsters running the same offy as 20 years before that even.... open rules.

My point is, there are cars that are within the safety parameters of the current car, were powered by engines that would still match or exceed the current status, are as fast or faster than the Dallara, and would allow free open competition to smaller teams. don't force another POS on the people that want to compete in a car that has met the same formula in the last ten years.

exactly

[Mark in Oshawa]

Euroboss.... ;)

CART always allowed previous years chassis. Remaining competetive generally drove teams to update the chassis or go to the newest specification, but they weren't forced to when a new one came out and it met the safety specs.

How did the little Lotus get into the 500? the turbine, 10 year old roadsters running the same offy as 20 years before that even.... open rules.

My point is, there are cars that are within the safety parameters of the current car, were powered by engines that would still match or exceed the current status, are as fast or faster than the Dallara, and would allow free open competition to smaller teams. don't force another POS on the people that want to compete in a car that has met the same formula in the last ten years.

Stop making sense.....that is just crazy talk!!