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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilf

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Helix-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris R

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marbles

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marbles

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.