Is it Time for Chassis Competition in IndyCar?
Times have changed in motorsports. Economics dictate decisions like never before. But are economics sometimes used as a lazy excuse to not entertain other ideas?
I was perusing through last week’s Racer.com Mailbag over the weekend and saw where a reader was asking if Lola, which has just emerged from bankruptcy and looking to expand, could ever return to IndyCar as a second chassis manufacturer.
For decades, Lola was a major chassis supplier to IndyCar. Al Unser and Bud Tingelstad drove the first IndyCar Lolas in the 1965 Indianapolis 500. Tingelstad crashed, but Al Unser finished ninth as a rookie. The next year, Graham Hill drove a Lola to victory in the 1966 Indianapolis 500. Al Unser won his third Indianapolis 500 in a Lola in 1978.
In the mid-80s, Lola supplanted March as the chassis of choice among IndyCar teams. It is ironic that while they heavily dominated car count on the IndyCar grid for over a decade into the mid-90s, Lola only had one Indianapolis 500 win to show for it in that whole time-frame – in 1990, with Arie Luyendyk. The other wins came from March (1985, 1986, 1987), Penske (1984, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994), Galmer (1992) and Reynard (1995, 1996).
Lola did earn its share of IndyCar championships in that time-frame, beginning with Bobby Rahal in 1987. Al Unser, Jr. won the 1990 championship for Lola, while Michael Andretti won it with a Lola in 1991. It was a Lola that carried Bobby Rahal to his final championship in 1992. Lola’s last championship in the 90s was in 1993 with Nigel Mansell. Reynard’s IndyCar debut came in 1994 and they won the championship in 1995 and every championship through 2001. From 2002 through 2004, Lola won the CART/Champ Car championship. Beginning in 2005, all Champ Car teams ran the Lola for the next two seasons, until it was replaced by the Panoz DP-01 in 2007. That car was shelved after the reunification on 2008. Suffice it t say that Lola had a pretty good twenty-year run in IndyCar.
IndyCar had a wide variety of chassis in the mid-to-late 90s, In 1998, there were as many as five chassis manufacturers on the grid; Lola, Reynard, Penske, Swift and Eagle. There were also four engine manufacturers that season; Ford, Mercedes, Honda and Toyota. Champ Car moved to a spec chassis series in 2005 (Lola, then Panoz), while the IRL went strictly with Dallara beginning in 2009 (Phil Giebler failed to qualify for the 2008 Indianapolis 500 in the last stand for Panoz).
In 2010, the ICONIC committee opened up bids for the new IndyCar chassis that was to debut in 2012. They fielded bids from Dallara, Lola, Swift, DeltaWing and BAT Engineering (a joint venture between Bruce Ashmore, Alan Mertens and Tim Wardrop). All designs were far different from each other. Some radical (DeltaWing), some innovative (Swift & BAT), some aesthetically pleasing (Lola) and some ugly (Dallara). The smart money for one of the bids was on Dallara, since they had a longstanding relationship with IndyCar, since the introduction of new chassis for the fledgling league in 1997.
The thing is – Dallara was the only winning bid. The argument was that they could build cars for the entire field much cheaper than for half or a third of the field. The new car from Dallara debuted in 2012. While there have been several modifications to the car over the years, the tub is essentially the same – as it is about to head into its fourteenth season of competition.
Fans aren’t happy sticking with a spec chassis for that much time. Drivers aren’t thrilled because this car has had so much added weight since its debut. There has been some added thickness to the sides of the car for driver protection. In 2020, the aero screen was added to the top of the car. This past season, the hybrid component added even more weight to the rear of the car. All of this has greatly altered the handling and braking characteristics of the car – and not for the better.
In the Racer.com Mailbag question, the reader asked if there was any way the famous brand could make it into the current NTT IndyCar Series. While I liked the possibility the question brought up, I already knew the answer before I read what Marshall Pruett had to say. Part of the answer read “…Unfortunately, there’s no anticipation of IndyCar looking anywhere beyond its official chassis partners at Dallara to create the next car, or the car after that.”
Is the current business model only able to sustain one chassis manufacturer? Is it not fiscally possible for two suppliers to exist? Just how much cheaper is it per car for Dallara to be able to build cars for the whole series instead of just half? I realize costs would go up per car, but is it that much more where it could not be feasible?
The question in the Mailbag said how Lola wants to step up their expansion efforts. Pruett had nothing but great things to say about Lola’s new owner (Till Bechtolsheimer). If they are that anxious, it seems like they could sacrifice some of their profits in order to get on the IndyCar grid, assuming they come in at the right price level.
My thinking is that IndyCar does not even want to open up any new car for bidding. They are comfortable with Dallara as their exclusive chassis partner. Dallara has made a substantial investment to be located on Main Street in Speedway. Although the cars are still built in Italy and shipped over, the spare parts are all made locally.
Even when the new car was launched in 2012, I don’t recall hearing drivers talk about how well it drove. The cars are very safe, and there’s a lot to be said for that. But are IndyCar fans well-served by preventing a company like Lola from entering the series, simply because Dallara is a good partner?
I always wondered how the Dallara designers would answer if asked “What would you say you do here”? If they have no competition to beat, what exactly do they do? Wait to design a fitting for a redesigned aero screen? Come up with a better way to house the hybrid unit? They certainly aren’t working on speed or how to beat their competitors – they don’t have any.
Proponents of the single chassis rule say that if a second chassis was to enter the series, it wouldn’t move the needle. No one would notice except the die-hards, and they’ve got them anyway. I disagree with that way of thinking.
If a new manufacturer like Lola were to come in and every Lola customer was a half-second quicker right out of the box, everyone would take notice. Chances are, that wouldn’t happen. But one chassis might have a distinct advantage on one type of track over another. If a Lola were to be mediocre at Long Beach or Barber, but decidedly quicker on the IMS oval; people would take notice. And it the Lola is far less disturbed by turbulence than the Dallara – that would force Dallara to come up with some changes on the fly. Of course, there could not be any developmental restrictions for the first year or two. Otherwise, the disadvantaged manufacturer is stuck for the season.
I feel that we have been forced into stagnation over the past several seasons. It may be more cost-effective to be limited to one single car, but if your series suffers from stagnation – what good is saving money over the course of a season if no one is watching?
I don’t think Dallara needs to go away. They have been a very good partner for IndyCar and should be given the opportunity to continue. But I do think it’s time that they had some competition. Competition is good! It would give their designers and engineers something to do. Fans have complained for years about lack of innovation. If your chassis manufacturer suddenly has some competition, they will be forced to innovate.
While a third engine manufacturer has proven elusive for the past decade, I don’t think that would be the case for a second chassis. Figure out a way to do it affordably, but bring another chassis manufacturer to the table when IndyCar finally decides it’s time for a new car. Mechanical innovation has been a key component to motor racing for well over a century. It’s time for it to be back to IndyCar.
George Phillips
Oilpressure 
November 20, 2024 at 4:44 am
Great piece, George. Something that is sorely needed.
November 20, 2024 at 9:14 am
Indycar did figure out a way to do chassis/aerodynamic competition (relatively) affordably, the 2015-2017 aerokits. The general fan response to the aerokits was not positive, folks didn’t like the way they looked and they also complained quite a bit at how they affected the on-track competition (so much for aerodynamic innovation proving interesting to the average fan). Now, one could argue that the aerokits were a half-measure version of chassis competition and not be wrong, but they definitely provided the things typically listed as appealing about chassis competition: new and distinct designs, changes and innovation in search of speed, and advantages and disadvantages at different tracks. Given the response to the aerokits by so many fans (not to mention the teams themselves), I’m not surprised that Indycar is not prioritizing chassis competition.
The great challenge of chassis competition in any racing series is that racing chassis rarely bring money into the sport through manufacturer subsidy or advertising. Thus, to have chassis competition, a racing series must either be able to tie chassis to a manufacturer (stock cars, sports cars) or have so much money flowing to teams that they are all but forced to spend on new cars (Formula 1, CART in the 90s, Indy 500 in the 60s) to even keep up with the back of the grid. If you have chassis competition without either of these other conditions, you get the shrunken fields of 1974 Can-Am or late era ALMS P1.
I give the aerokit idea a lot of kudos for being a genuine effort at getting chassis to be something that would bring money into the sport via subsidy (by series rule) and potentially by advertising as engines and tires are. I was disappointed that it did not pan out, but the manufacturer-branded aerokits were nevertheless the first use of chassis as a marketing platform since Porsche’s efforts in the late 80s. Another rare example of a chassis built with advertising in mind, the wacky Eagle Aircraft car that Ken Hamilton briefly took out on track at Indy in 1982.
November 20, 2024 at 11:46 am
Excellent observations, George! In theory the notion of a second chassis supplier is fantastic. In practice, it seems problematic. Take Firestone, for example. A few years ago, they prepared to bolt. Then those who strap in spoke up. They did not feel they would have the same level of safety or comfort with anyone else. That is easy to understand. The same sentiment exists with Dallara. The forensic work they do after almost every crash gets translated into enhancement that makes their tubs safer.
Fan desire for manufacturer competition and a more open paying field usually falls on deaf ears. After all, there are expenses to watch.
Dallara committed to Speedway years ago, and their spare parts facility/warehouse in downtown Speedway was instrumental in its revitalization. It makes a really nice banquet rental hall, too. That is what it gets used mostly for.
What if someone else committed to a Speedway headquarters and made safety engineering a priority? Why not a tire competition?
It’s probably all a fantasy at this point. If Roger Penske, with the second or third ranked dealer group, cannot attract a third engine manufacturer, we may as well just snicker at any notion of additional chassis, tire, or other suppliers.
I grew up in an era of unfettered innovation in IndyCar and miss it a lot. It would certainly be great to inch toward that mindset once again.
November 20, 2024 at 12:42 pm
I tend to agree with Alison Page’s perspectve, “Variety is the spice of life means life (insert racing) is more interesting when you (insert race teams) try new things to vary your (insert racing) experiences.
This idiom conveys the idea that a mixture of elements contributes to a more enjoyable and fulfilling (racing experience) existence.”
Might it be said that attendance at INDYcar races as well as lack of abundance of financial backers of teams appears to support the need for “variety.”
The longstanding sole chassis manufacturer and now the “Charter” just buries the longstanding lack of variety that much deeper……………….. and INDYcar’s future viability? ?