Looking into the IRL’s future…
League releases objectives for new chassis, plus a look at Dallara’s three concepts for the project
With four chassis manufacturers battling for the chance to create the next generation of IndyCars, the Indy Racing League has released their objectives for the new machine, which is scheduled to debut in 2012.
Dallara, Delta Wing, Lola and Swift are the four groups in discussion with league officials about designing, manufacturing and supplying the cars to IZOD IndyCar Series teams. They’ll have a list of goals to check off from the IRL, including mandates to make the cars lighter in weight, have bigger space for sponsor logos, and cost-effective.
But the top priority for the new chassis is, as always, safety.
“Our drivers take the greatest risks in the world of sports driving Indy cars and it is paramount we have the best safety features designed into this next generation of cars,” said IRL president of competition Brian Barnhart in a press release.
Here is the full list of objectives from the league:
- Safe: The new chassis must adhere to the league’s already high safety standards while exploring new technology to improve safety in all aspects of the car.
- Raceable: The new chassis must continue to produce the exciting racing that has become signature of the IZOD IndyCar Series while not affecting other cars on track (i.e. less sensitive to the turbulence).
- Cost-effective: The league continues to work to reduce the cost of participation for teams in the IZOD IndyCar Series, which remains an important priority in this economic climate. The new chassis must have a price point that adheres to that goal.
- American-made: The new chassis must be built in the U.S., preferably at an Indiana-based facility.
- Less mass/More efficient: A lighter chassis with less mass that produces the same aerodynamic effect in an efficient way.
- Relevant technology: The league would like the new chassis to be relevant to the future of the consumer auto industry; innovative technology that is born on the racetrack and can translate to consumer cars.
- Modern Look: More space for sponsor logos, cars easily identifiable.
- Green: The Indy Racing League prides itself on its role in the greening of racing and wants to maintain its position as a leader in environmentally-friendly initiatives with this chassis.
We’ll get to see the Delta Wing prototype debut next week at the Chicago Auto Show, but Dallara, the league’s current chassis manufacturer, is set to roll out their concepts for the 2012 IndyCar tomorrow.
What you’re seeing up above is one of the three concepts that the Italian manufacturer has come up with, “Concept 1.” It appears that they’ve taken elements from race cars in various racing series. You can see a longer, sleeker version of the “bubble” that has been on the Dallara since 2003, but also the Champ Car roll hoop and a Formula One shark fin that emanates from the engine cowling.
Judging from those elements, as well as the sidepods, this appears to be a more traditional design by Dallara. But that’s not all they had in their heads…
Unless I am visually mistaken, the standard IRL airbox returns in “Concept 2.” But that’s a small matter compared to the bulked-up sidepods that gradually slope downward. It appears that increased sponsor signage is a main point with this car, which seems to strike a balance between the old (the airbox) and the new (the sloping sidepods).
Finally, we have “Concept 3,” easily the most radical-looking of the Dallara bunch. The sidepods stretch all the way from the front to the rear, where its edges go right into the rear wheel barge that covers all but the top quarter of the tire! Also, check out the rear wing and notice that there’s no center post — from the looks of this, it appears the wing plates are attached to the body itself instead of being in their normal position.
From what I’ve been told, Dallara has made this car lighter and more efficient than their current chassis. Even more importantly for teams, they’ll be cheaper too.
I’ve only had a half-hour with these pictures, but as of now, I’m more keen on the second concept. I look at the first concept and all I can see is a hodgepodge of different elements that aren’t original. I like the cojones Dallara showed on the design of Concept 3, but I’m worried about that rear wing.
As for the second concept, I think it addresses a key problem in my opinion — the lack of ad space on IndyCars. If you’re going 200+ miles an hour, you need all the space you can get if you’re a sponsor. The cars are going so fast, not many people are going to catch the product being pushed. Now, NASCAR stock cars go pretty quick as well (if not as quickly as the IndyCars), but the boxy shape of their machines are nice, big ”rolling billboards.” There’s enough space on the stock cars to counteract the speed.
On Concept 2, I see two big areas for signage on the sidepods. The primary sponsor can go on the “slope,” while an associate sponsor that wants some decent air time can go on the lower surface that’s flat and curved. It’s a two-for-one that can help sponsors get a better chance of having a solid return of investment, which is pretty important for companies in this current economy.
However, even if Dallara does get the nod from the IRL, whatever concept they choose will be jeered if it isn’t safe and it fails to enhance the declining on-track product that we’ve seen in recent years. That goes for Delta Wing, Lola and Swift as well.
So what do you think of the Dallara concepts? Which one do you like the best and why? Feel free to leave your comments!



The first two look as though the airbox was retained as if for a N/A engine installation.
That automatically makes #3 my choice, as that configuration would be permitted with a turbo four cyl…particularly a “boxer” engine (Subaru, Porsche). The front wheel fairings are desireable for several reasons, and they also give you that extra “ad” space you are looking for.
Here’s what I wrote to HVM, just before I saw the pics today:
What do I think NOW? Today?
Eight reasons why a road car mechanic thinks an engineer can’t design a racing chassis without an engine spec:
1) Indeterminate center of gravity to calculate suspension loads.
2) Design elements aft of the monocoque rear bulkhead cannot be resolved. Stressed or non-stressed engine architecture? Required width of engine bay? Inline four or “boxer” engine? V6? V8? Turbo or N/A?
3) Even with a wheelbase spec provided, no known installed length of engine prevents determination of gearbox configuration.
4) Requirement, dimension and placement of all intercoolers cannot be determined.
5) Configuration of bodywork cannot be designed. Air box or not? Sidepods required to house intercoolers? Engine cover/rear deck design undetermined, so rear wing configuration cannot be projected.
6) Gross weight, weight distribution and power to weight ratio cannot be accurately defined. Capacity and weight of required fuel load unknown.
7) Downforce generation cannot be quantified without first resolving the bodywork designed to house the required components.
Because Designer Andrea Toso of Dallara says so. “IRL and IMS must define the concept of the vehicle which includes the architecture and engine capacity….Dallara can not influence the IRL in this regard, but is ready to define the project in light of the technical choices of the IRL and IMS.”
So it doesn’t get fully designed on the computer screen, or prototyped, or tested, or presented for approval before it has an engine configuration. Even the Falcon had a better head start than that.
The Delta will be an incomplete “concept model”, unless Bowlby has already gone ahead and defined his own criteria for the drivetrain as well. No one else will bother drawing much more than a tentative picture at present.
Function cannot follow form, this is a race car we’re talking about. The rest is cartoons and concepts, is it not?
Andy Bernstein
Andy Bernstein
February 5, 2010 at 12:06 am
[...] on the 2012 car front. You can see these cars EXCLUSIVELY here…and here…and here…and [...]
is it May yet? » Blog Archive » OMG OMG OMG OMG
February 5, 2010 at 12:54 am
The yellow car is easily the best.
What do the other suppliers have?
Bruce
February 5, 2010 at 1:06 am
Wow. I really don’t like option #1. It looks too much like the current Dallara. That hideous shark fin is something best left in the pinkie-up world of F1.
Option #2 is the best looking of the 3, but I am certainly not sold on it.
Option #3 is interesting since they fully enclose the rear drive wheel. This would allow more beating and banging on the track and we all know that makes for good racing
I am not a fan of the organic lines on this chassis though.
All said, these are concept drawings. How far has Dallara gone on the design on any of these? With Delta Wing showing off their model next week, Dallara had to get out something….
mike
February 5, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The only big flaw of the second proposal is the nose. The side picture reveals it’s too long. The front wheels could be pushed forward, I guess.
NaBUru38
February 5, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Andy, I agree with much of what you say. One can layout the basic chassis parameters without knowing the precise engine spec, even if you can’t design the final details. Plus, we can make some educated guesses as to the nature if the engine. We know that only two configurations are being considered, Honda’s V6 turbo, and an inline 4 turbo. In Concept 2, I don’t think we’re seeing an airbox. We’re seeing a roll hoop over the engine cowling. I think it’s just the angle of that one image that gives the impression of an airbox. Other perspectives do not show an airbox.
Doug
February 6, 2010 at 11:31 am
[...] were still daring but not on the scale of Delta Wing. He was also impressed with their work. The Dallaras didn’t go over as well with him overall, but he did indicate his interest in the third [...]
Informal research: A kid’s opinion on Delta Wing « Indy Racing Revolution (temporary site)
February 15, 2010 at 3:29 am