Last week a fifth (yes, I said fifth) design group entered the fray from the 2012 IndyCar Chassis Derby, showing that anyone with a computer is interested in designing the next generation of racing in the IRL. And you don't even really need a spectacular computer - you could have a Commodore Amiga or even and Apple IIgs - as it appears the folks do over at BAT Engineering.

The BAT Engineering design has not only produced a very fast car, but it also provides the strength and structure to allow the drivers to race hard and go wheel to wheel without ending their race early. This close racing and the durability of the car design, will add to the on-track spectacle and competitive format with more entries making the dash to the checkered flag.

Blah blah blah. Come on, BAT - if you're gonna be late you gotta come with something stronger than that. Anyhow, you can view all FIVE designs anytime you want over at this page at IndyCar.com

In a related note, I happened upon a quote from a couple weeks ago that had been published at the corner of the internet owned by Gordon Kirby. Somewhere in between 17 bazillion words of the typical Kirby tome was this interesting quote from Roger Penske regarding the DeltaWing, which seems to be lacking Chip Ganassi's level of enthusiasm.

"Honda's been a big partner and so has Dallara and we don't need a political battle with some car owners wanting a Delta Wing and other owners wanting to stay the traditional way," Penske comments. "I think if we wait a year and push it out to 2013 we can race what we have. We've had good racing and we can keep the costs down especially with the economy the way it is. Then Chip and those guys can get that car developed. Once we get it on the racetrack it's going to be real obvious. I think when that happens they'll either be a lot of support or there won't be.

"At this point I think any new innovation is positive and I think it's important that we evaluate it properly. I think we need innovation. The world is living on innovation and certainly this is an opportunity. What we want to do is evaluate it properly because a knee jerk at this time with a new car and new engines it's going to be expensive. On the other hand it might be something to take Indy car racing where it needs to be."

Does this mean Roger Penske wants to try to lock in another year of dominance? Does it have anything to do with the Ilmor/Honda current monopoly of engines? Does it mean he's not a big fan of jokes about race cars that look like phallic tricycles? I won't pretend to know, leaving all mind-reading duties to the more skilled members of the audience.

What I do know is waiting a year takes away one of the supposed advantages of the War Wiener design since it is said to be a lot further along in development than any of the other four bidders. At the very least we have some obvious hedging here from a man whose reputation involves very little second-guessing.

At the very least it's encouraging to hear The Captain declare "...we don't need a political battle with some car owners..." Amen to that!

This whole new media thing might be working out after all, as hot on the heels of his in depth conversation with Swift Engineering's Mark Page comes another thoughtful discussion with a representative from another 2012 chassis designer not involved with "Delta Wing". It's crazy, I know.

This time Andrea Toso of Dallara gets to represent.

On priorities:

Toso said Dallara’s approach to car design focuses on “the 3S of Racing,” -- Safety, Strength and Speed.

“You need Safety first; if you are fine with Safety, then you move to Strength, which includes engineering strength (reliability) and marketing (economics, costs, support and distribution ); if you are fine with Strength, then you move to Speed (which is performance). Anytime you have an issue in the Safety or Strength department, you have to address it right away, even by conceding on Speed.”

On cost reduction:

Dallara says it’s designs would reduce chassis costs by 45%. Much of that savings, Toso said, will come from being able to design a car for the league as it is today.

“The current chassis was designed in 2002, in an era of strong competition between chassis and between engine manufacturers, when oval races were the only format; so the car was designed to host a variety of wheelbase and track width options, multiple aero parts, pull rod front suspension (to reduce drag etc.),” Toso said. “By 2005, it had to be adapted to road courses, by 2007 it became de facto a single chassis – single engine series, as competition went away.”

There's so much more discussed - from open source, to the competition, to plans for building the chassis in Indianapolis - that if you have any interest in the 2012 design I highly urge you to read the entire post. If you don't have the time now then print it out and take it to the restroom as "reading material", strategically leaving it behind so someone else can absorb the depth of article as well. (You think I'm joking? How do you think I learned so much about computers?)

As a side note, I don't know about you but I'm excited about the possibilities of this increase in participation in IndyCar journalism from non-traditional outlets. Who knows what scoops the future holds.

"Perez Hilton discovers Team 3G driver plans for 2010..."

"Harvard Law Review has determined Danica Patrick unaffected by weight restrictions..."

"FoodNetwork.com reports Dario and Ashley adopting Hatian orphan..."

"Gizmodo has learned Roger Penske will purchase Greece..."

It would appear that "Delta Wing" is the new "Tony George" inasmuch as the mere mention of the two words seems to send IndyCar fans into a frothy fit of syllable-based bomb throwing. To keep stoking this fire of conversation, the Delta Wing has been sending members of it's group out for various interview hither and yon to sell their "concept" which many race fans have mistaken for an actual vehicle. Meanwhile other would-be suitors for the 2012 IndyCar chassis have been curiously silent, saying nothing but a few humble techincal words on PDFs containing their own designs while enduring the Delta Wing full frontal assault by team owners amounting to "Take this design or shove it!"

That is (Jack Arute voice) until now.

Many of you may not realize that our buddy Bill at pressdog.com was once a newspaper reporter, which in revelation may help explain the the name of his site. (See, you CAN learn something from a blog!) Today he decided to go more "press" with only minimal "dogging" in hunting down Swift chief scientist Mark Page. You might recall Swift as the kind folks who presented this as an idea.


Show THAT to some 10-year-olds and get back to us with your survey results. But before you do, give Mr Page's interview at pressdog a read, as there is much to be gained by anyone who cares even one whit about the future of this sport. It doesn't take long before you figure out two things about Page: he's quite excited to discuss designs relatign to the 2012 chassis, and he's very eager to work with the IRL whichever chassis solution they decide.

“Whatever the IRL decides about the 2012 car, we want to be involved”

See, I told you so.

There are a boatload of issues available for discussion relating to this single interview, but three in particular seem to stick out as issues that need to be resolved before Swift, Delta Wing, or anyone else for that matter are handed the keys to the future of the IZOD IndyCar Series.

Rectangles and triangles

We started with the stated objectives from IRL. They chose to give objectives instead of specs, which gave us freedom to innovate...The car had to be a modernized IndyCar. To us, that was open-wheel, with a rear-engine, and four corners. Wings were optional.

We have heard and read many interviews with Delta Wing lead designer Ben Bowlby, and although there has been much discusses exactly none of them have involved asking the single question I would ask: Does it HAVE to be a tricycle? (I know it actually has four wheels, but those two up front are 24 inches apart, and I've read early designs actually involved a single front wheel. And it certainly doesn't have "four corners".)

Compare this in terms of a different automotive innovation. In the mid-1990s, a particular American auto manufacturer wanted to come up with a vehicle that would meet the changing needs of consumers, that would be able to be made at a lower cost than it's rivals, and that would have unique looks that were sure to turn heads. This resulted in...TA DA!


The Ponitac Aztek was disaster as an automobile because too many consumer couldn't get beyond the look of the thing, and it provides a wonderful lesson about the concept of "the concept". Despite all the money that might be saved by the concept of the Delta Wing, the fact is it stopped being a concept for most fans when the tarp came off the thing and the simulation videos were unleashed for us to actually SEE the concept. And that's exactly the point where the air went out of the balloon, because from then on it’s been nothing but "man parts" jokes in the comments of every story featuring a picture of the Delta Wing.

While much of this could be rectified if they could just change the car to have "four corners", if you listen to Ben Bowlby on a recent Trackside show and if you read some of the information at the Delta Wing site you’ll quickly notice that one thing that holds this adventure in engineering together is that eye-sore of a front end. The 24-inch track with the lack of wings that gives the whole design its man-parts-iness are extremely critical to this entire design.

In other words, the very things that make it not so much an IndyCar to many are the very essence of what make it a Delta Wing. Bowlby didn't explicitly say it but it sounds like he can’t expand the front wheelbase without making all of the science behind the whole concept go out the window. It would be most helpful to know if this is in fact true, because if the front track could be expanded a little and the rear reduced from 70 inches then we might be looking at something that looks a bit better.

Tony Johns at Pop Off Valve shows an idea.


I can only speak for myself, but as a fan I can take a 300 horsepower engine, I can take the lack of wings, and I could even someday embrace the giant freaking airplane wing on the model. I can take the any number of radical changes presented by the Delta Wing in the name of innovation, but I simply cannot see the relevance of watching a race involving three-wheeled vehicles.

The not-so-free market

The DeltaWing’s concept of “open source” gets a little more skepticism from Page and Swift.

“There are two ways to look at it,” he said. “One is that different part makers making the same parts, therefore additional competition encourages better pricing. That’s a very strong argument. The other one is that you let competitors go into the wind tunnel and develop their own special bits -- If that extends to the entire car -- the money proposition doesn’t come close to closing.”

As I mentioneed earlier, one of the selling points Delta Wing's Ben Bowlby made was that the engineering committee for Delta Wing would take design submissions from anyone, evaluate the product, put a price on the product, and make it available to everyone. Well, it could be that the "put a price on the product" part seems like the built-in protection for higher-budgeted teams like Penske or Ganassi.

Let's say The Captain develops some super unobtanium-based nosecone that costs like $200,000 to build. OK, that's a $200,000 part that anyone can buy, but how may teams are going to buy that part? I'm thinking two.


I can't tell for sure but it appears there are all kinds of places for tweaking the "concept" or the "open source" Delta Wing, especially in technology that extends beyond the surface of the car. I don't know how much the Delta Wing would standardize, but what about computer related parts that work internally? Or gearings? Or the part that's become the most highly designed on the current car - the shock absorbers?

Please note that I'm not saying the Delta Wing should be rejected on this facet. I understand this is what the vested parties in the parts buying game - that is, the owners - are relishing, and if it significantly helps them from bleeding money like a mortgage lender then it needs to be given huge consideration.

But open source does not mean equal source, and given that for the foreseeable future some teams will have significantly more funding than others it would be disingenuous to portray the Delta Wing as some sort of great leveler of the playing field. Ultimately what needs to be addressed is not only the cost of competition but also the competition itself. You know, the actual racing product that right now produces two teams that win nearly every race.

This is not to say that Swift or any other manufacturer have the perfect solution, but Swift has also propsed a "Mushroom buster" in their designs, which shows that they are at least thinking about how to make cars that can actually pass each other. IndyCar fans have seen enough "lock step" races recently to last several lifetimes.

On a side note, between "Push To Pass" and "Mushroom Busters" it appears the future of IndyCar racing is inextricably linked to Mario Kart.

For the love of the fans

I started re-reading IndyCar articles in RACER magazine. Then we all hit the internet to see what fans were saying on blogs. Also, we received a lot of positive feedback on the FN09 car. But the most important thing was to show our concepts publicly, long before everything was set in stone. Internet blogs and polls have provided tremendous feedback. We think this could be used a few more times in the car’s development. This lets the fans direct the design. Our notion is to generate feasible options, present them to the world, and in three days you have the answer.

At somepoint all of this scientific acheivment accomplished by the new chassis design has to translate beyond concepts and become actual ticket sales and TV ratings and maybe even merchandising arrangements. And at the end of every single one of those goals is a consumer who needs to be given something of value for their entertainment dollar.

This isn't being mentioned as a display of some massive enlightenment on my part, but rather to show how Mr Page gets this particular "concept" - the one that involves paying customers. Just as Dallara and Lola have submitted designs that have been made available to the general public, so to has Swift, and Page makes no excuses for saying that seeking feedback has "let the fans direct our design". He's no dummy, because Page knows that while the IRL principals need to meet certain thresholds of performance, safety, and cost, they also need to have something that looks appealing at first glance.

This is why it is absurd to insist we need to think about designs for a few days and only then decide whether or not they are appealing. First impressions are profound, and if the IndyCar series is ever going to grow it's base of popularity they need to have cars that on first glance don't look revolting to a significant portion of the public.

If a TV ad comes on with a car someone finds ridiculous then they won't be inclined to buy the product, and if another someone is channel surfing and finds a race with cars that they think look ridiculous they aren't going to "take a few days" to consider watching. The IRL can't afford to make a mistake here, because no amount of shoe-pounding about form over function or 10-year-olds is going to change those initial reactions.


The saving grace of this is that Delta Wing and Swift aren't mutually exclusive. While we can debate all we want about our favorite chassis "concept" submitted thusfar, there is still the chance that the Delta Wing is re-conceptualized to look more like a car and less like man-parts, and if those changes are made Page says Swift would be delighted to work with the platform. In that respect the Delta Wing COULD be the best of all possible worlds as a concept, because it allows for multiple manufacturers to compete in the series. And you probably noticed there aren't a lot of companies beating a path to participate in the IRL.

But now is the time for discussion and feedback, and hopefully ALL potential owners of the next iteration of IndyCar chassis will listen to the positives AND THE NEGATIVES of their current proposals. In Bill's words, "keep talking", because ultimately you are the one with the time and money that will help sustain and elevate this sport.

On a final note I highly urge you to leave feedback at the HVM Racing site on this subject, as well as vote in THIS POLL. I'm pretty sure it's being watch closely by officials at 16th and Georgetown. While decisions will probably not be based on this alone, it does give the league an idea of what YOU want to see in the next generation of IndyCar - and that ain't a bad thing at all.

In 1963, Craig Breedlove set his first land speed record at the Bonnevile Salt Flats in one of his series of "Spirit of America" vehicles. Here is one of those vehicles.



Curt Cavin first mentioned the relevance of this epic car to the future of IndyCar a few weeks ago, and today, nearly 50 years after the first record-setting run, this "Spirit of America" design has been applied to the "Delta Wing" IndyCar design as a sign of unprecedented innovation. Behold that which might possibly be the future of IndyCars.



In my less-than-esteemed opinion, it's soaking wet bag of mess. The unsightly offspring of a dragster and an F-16. A high-speed tricycle, and according to several IndyCar fans, a phallic tricycle at that.

It's a steaming pile of retro-inspired junk, summarized ironically by the Delta Wing site when it read, at the expiration of it's longstanding countdown, "Sorry, you're too late." Really, at best this is very Colonial Viper, circa 1978, but flattened and encumbered by wheels.

Maybe I'm off my rocker but I thought in addition to speed and innovation IndyCar racing is supposed to also be about aesthetics and, in recent years, safety. This new design might be fast, but as a race car that would be required to turn is looks ridiculous. As bad as you might think the currently well-aged Dallara design is, can you tell me you'd rather watch this instead?



Really? That doesn't look - forgive me for saying this - utterly laughable to you?

Before I ruffle too many feathers here, I want to say that I do appreciate the "boldness" of the design, and I understand that designer Ben Bowlby has put a lot of thought into this.

“Looking radical was never the objective – the Delta Wing shape is simply the outcome of addressing performance targets. Approaching it as an engineer I was most aware of safety, performance and efficiency and its relevance to the auto industry and also cost. It’s not about making a cheap race car, but there is the issue of cost vs. value for money. This car is high-tech but simple. The parts count is way down and that helps keep it inexpensive and easy to maintain compared to the cars of the last 20 years – and we have a great deal of visible signage area!

“It’s an integrated approach. It’s not JUST the car. It’s the technology, spectator and industry appeal and engagement, combined with the car. What we have proposed for the car is not a styling exercise…. Form has followed function.”

Fine, but let's talk about that form for a moment. I'm not engineer, but what I am is - like most of you - a fan. And I'm certain that even though I feel like this makes about as much sense as an IndyCar as a Kia Sedona does as a Cup entry, I fully acknowledge there are at least some of you who love this thing like it was warm and gooey chocolate chip cookie. And to the extent that it should be given consideration to race against designs already presented by Dallara and Swift - as well as some lovely designed paragraphs from Lola - I say fine, by all means let 'em race.

Except here's the rub: right now the series, in an effort to contain costs, claims that there will be only one chassis design for 2012. As Marshall Pruett has noted amidst some senseless name-calling and mistaken comparisons to a Spike Lee flick, this is a design supported by many IRL team owners, and as such it is has been submitted under the guise of a veiled threat.

It’s sad, lame, and plays into the partisan politics that have no place in a series as fragile as IndyCar. I don’t know if he (Brian Banhart, whom Pruett refers to as "Kee-Rock") realizes just how close he keeps pushing the Delta Wings to a point where they decide to form their own series.

Jackass moves by USAC spawned CART. A jackass move created the IRL. Maybe this latest jackass move will cause the Delta Wings, an ownership base mostly free of jackasses, to take their fire elsewhere.

I can hear it now…“I’m a caveman, and I’m frightened by your strange Delta Wing machine…”

If Kee-Rock keeps it up, he could find himself with an empty paddock in 2012 and no one to drive his new Dallara.

This, from a man who earlier in the same article suggest all parties involved should "Put aside your differences, whatever they may be, and work together." Really? Working together, you say? By calling those who disagree with you names?

But I don't want to be distracted here because this isn't about Mr Pruett or Mr Barnhart, but about the rest of us who dedicate our time and money to this sport. The FANS. And this is the part that as a fan I start swearing, throwing small appliances, and threatening to take up blogging about some other sport. We just got bimergified two years ago after years of insistence by these very owners, and now all of a sudden it sounds like they're ready to tear it all apart again over some stupid-looking car. Excuse me, but anything associated with another open-wheel split is certainly not going to be described as "innovative".

And aside from the baggage that already accompanies this car there are some very real issues based on the prototype revealed today. On first glance it looks to me like that car has no mirrors, probably because they'd have to go directly in the driver's line of sight. Couple that with the extremely narrower wheelbase in the front and it would seem drivers would be more likely to run into each other with those big backsides.

And speaking of running into each other, the Delta Wing also has an extraordinarily exposed tub without protective sidepods that makes me wonder if anyone gave Alex Zanardi a consultation. Oh, and it's got fenders, which call me crazy seems antithetical to "open-wheel" racing. Then again, if the wheelbase variance makes collisions more likely then fenders may be warranted. At this point I ask in earnest, "What exactly were you designing here again?"

Early reaction from IRL drivers was mixed - Graham Rahal digs it, Justin Wilson does not, Alex Lloyd is diplomatic - and since these are the people that would have to actually drive the thing they should certainly be allowed some input. As it is, you can sell me on the innovation but not on the aesthetics, so excuse me while I dump a bottle of Hater-ade all over that...thing.

Because what do we have to bid on today...A New Car!!!!


That's right friends, Dallara has released the first image of what could be the 2012 IndyCar design. Let's let Patrick of TrackSide Online describe the four-wheeled scrumptiousness.

It looks somewhat similar to a current IndyCar Series machine, though it has a roll hoop instead of an air scoop. Also the car has much smaller sidepots and very rounded edges petty much everywhere. The main visual difference is the large vertical fin running to the rear wing.

But wait there's more, because this showcase also includes...another new car!

Looks a lot like the model we all saw at Indy with a very angular design. The sidepods run almost from the ground to the driver's helmet. The tub looks pretty traditional, it is everything that hangs off of it that looks far more futuristic with lots of angles and a smaller fin. Like #1 it is still a winged car though the rear wing looks very small.

Now hold on before you bid, because this package from Dallara also features...you guessed it, another new car!

Kind of looks like a few of the cars that ran Indy in the 70's, but taken to a new level. The front wings actually have big aero ramps to move the air around the tires. The sidepods start at the driver but angle back a lot to the rear tires, which again are nearly shielded from the air. The rear wing is one element mounted at the outside to something that pretty much covers the entire rear of the car - including the tires. Tire to tire contact would be hard with this one, though I don't see much crush space right next to the driver's compartment. If viewed from above, it kind of looks like a triangle from the driver on back.

"OK, Bob, I'd like to bid...uh..."

(looking nervously at pressdog holding up all his fingers)

"...um..."

(trying to see how many fingers Declan is holding up)

"...OK, I'll...I'll say...uh..."

(notices Roy Hobbson passed out in his chair, clutching a pint of turpentine)

"...ONE MEEEEEEEEELLION DOLLARS!"

Seriously friends, why do we have to pick just one of these designs? To paraphrase Rodney King, "Can't we just get them all...along?" Forgive me for wondering aloud (or at least in print) why we can't we have all of them and have, you know, different looking cars at every race. Wouldn't that be just a little more interesting than watching Floyd and Roger out-tweak everyone else every year?

I know, I know, everyone within a 500-mile perimeter of Brian Barnhart SWEARS to me the cars would absolutely cost more if entries in the series used more than one design, but the current cars cost around a quarter of a million off the shelf already, so how much more is more? Is having competing chassises, chassi, or whatever the plural of "chassis" is, as impossible as getting an IndyCar race here in Phoenix? Really?

Well, fine. I'll go with Concept #2 then. What about you?

UPDATE: Changed my mind. Forget these concepts - I'm going with the "Gray Ghost" design from that Milka Duno movie.

Speed Racer DVD. Gray Ghost. @ Yahoo! Video