Spec Series official

[Hard Driver]

Champcar kind of drifted to a spec series, with the demise of engine competition and then the defacto demise of chassis competition. But, technically you could still run a Reynard, right. So this is the first official spec series car.

Obviously Champcar has been a defacto spec series for years now, but now it is official, is this a good thing or just the only affordable way.

Personally, I think having Champcar be the ultimate spec series, with near F1 speed is a great identity. A true drivers series. So this evolution into a spec series is a good thing that should be maintained and promoted. Even if Champcar becomes big enough to support multiple engines and chassis the spec series identity should be maintained.

[L1P1]

I hate the Spec thing. I'm losing interest fast. However, I do feel that there's value - and hope - to being the winning spec series. And so I wait....

[coolhand]

I dont think the spec thing should be maintained.

If anything multiple chasis is a good thing.

engines are a more troublsome matter.

[Lizzerd]

I'm with coolhand. "Spec" chassis scares me a little bit for the long run. Rigid rules don't scare me if multiple chassis builders would be alowed after 2006. Face it, folks, CC is basically a two year old series still working its way back from the bankrupcy of CART. I'm okay going with a spec chassis for now. If things work out, open up the competetion in '07 or '08.

I can only think of one and a half major or semi-major OW series in the world that isn't totally spec - F1 and irl.

About the engines, again, spec isn't bad RIGHT NOW. If the series was opened up to other manufacturers, Yen wars of the past will again muck things up big time. If a regulation that included a common ECU or other means of ensuring parity could be devised, I would be all for Mfg1 vs. Mfg2 vs. Mfg3.

Time will tell. Let's just be happy we still have a strong and getting stronger series to be behind.

[Methanolandbrats]

Champcar is turning from a racing series into an entertainment series and the hundreds of thousands of urban street race fans don't care about the chassis or motor. They care about the event. The only people left arguing about chassis and motor competition are about 15 guys on the internet.

[mueber]

Champ Car has always gravitated toward homogenization: Everybody had an Offy engine; everybody had a Watson roadster; everyone had an Eagle chassis; everyone had a Cosworth engine; and everyone had a March chassis at various times, and now everybody has a Lola chassis.

The diversity of the recent past was made possible by the money the engine manufacturers dumped into the series. The money is gone; the diversity is gone. The money comes back; the diversity comes back.

I'm not gonna worry about it; I'm gonna have fun at the races and watch Champ Car grow.

[High Sided]

as long as the racing is good/great i could care less about it being spec. :thumbup:

[KLang]

I'm not gonna worry about it; I'm gonna have fun at the races and watch Champ Car grow.

I agree completely. :thumbup: We came real close to not having a series at all.

[DjDrOmusic]

I think the amigos have it in hand people, and I believe that eventually we will see it evolve away from being spec.

[Andrew Longman]

If it has the effect of solving the problem of areo wash and the inability to overtake, I'm for it long term.

Near term, the cost savings make it an absolute must.

But think of this also, and this doesn't necessarily serve an endorsement, but NASCAR is essentially a spec series. The bodies share a common template and most of the important parts and construction are NASCAR mandated right down to gear ratios. Engines are based on different manufactures, but carbs are essentially speced and constuction mandated low tech. When a company like Toyota starts producing a faster, lighter engine the other cry foul and it looks like NASCAR will make Toyota dummy up their engine.

The point is, a spect series can be wildly successful. If you do it really right, as I think CCWS is doing, then you have very fast ans impressive cars that are hard to drive competitively and showcase real driver talent in front of lots of fans and sponsors. A good mix if you ask me (and you did) :)

[formulaben]

Near term, the cost savings make it an absolute must.

No matter what your concern, this is really what is important right now. We can worry about ______ when we have a full, healthy field.

Although still a far from perfect product, the new guys at Champcar have done a great job and taking the bold and sometimes painful steps to recovery.

[Hard Driver]

Let me add,

While I think many Champcar fans are F1 fans and fans of the amazing technology of F1, that does not neccessarily lead to the best racing. This year in F1 was interesting, but years of Ferrari dominance was not. (unless you are a Scumacher fan) But American racing fans tend to want more side by side racing.

In order to provide close side by side racing, the spec formula delivers. Champcar should always be about high tech. As the series grows, add more expensive equipment to the cars, like the carbon brakes and wishbones. I don't think the terms high tech and spec are mutually exclusive. A Champcar should always be a fast, powerful beast that is impressive all on it's own.

But the identity of Champcar needs to be to focus on the driver challange and having parity in equipment stresses that. And having parity in equipment will make for more close racing, enhance the "show" and allow more teams to succeed.

[oddlycalm]

Champcar is turning from a racing series into an entertainment series and the hundreds of thousands of urban street race fans don't care about the chassis or motor. They care about the event. The only people left arguing about chassis and motor competition are about 15 guys on the internet. Can't argue with that when comparing to what we had in the distant past. Whether or not it can become more interesting than it is now seems like it depends on several factors. Closer following, more passing and fewer FCY should make for more watchable races from where I sit. Even if the new design only cuts down on wheel interlocks by 20%, that's probably close to one per race. With spin/stalls not requiring a FCY we can mostly check that off the list. There will still be wrecks in nearly every race, but I'd like to see less of the safety team and more of the green flag. Add to that Cotman doing a good job of actually letting them race and it could be pretty good as far as motorsport shows go.

Leaving the full course yellows and endless driver penalties behind isn't any guarantee of success though. Even in it's most successful forms and most successful periods US racing has been characterized by a lot of FCY pace laps and driver penalties for everything from A to Z and it's possible that the casual fans won't like start to finish race action and the lack of officiating controversies to argue about... ;) More seriously, many fans traditionally took an interest in which car/engine combination was faster and preferred one over the others. That will be missing until at least 2010 from the looks of it.

oc

[Jervis Tetch 1]

When I think of spec series I think of those idiots across town. :shakehead

[gjc2]

I’m really having a tough time trying to dislike the one chassis, one engine Champ Car model. Suppose there were two or more chassis to chose from. At any given event one design is likely to be more competitive than the others. Suppose your favorite driver’s team chose one of the lesser cars. What’s so great about that? Suppose two drivers are very close in points for the championship with one race remaining in the season, and the driver you're rooting for has the chassis that doesn’t work as well on the type of circuit the final race is held on. What’s so great about that?

The same hold true of tires and engines. Don’t we want a level playing field? If everyone has the same power and grip the race is a true competition of racing teams and racing drivers, not of big companies that only really care about the marketing, not about the sport.

The difference between a spec series and the Champ Car model is the fact that in a spec series the teams have very limited (if any) ability to modify, adjust and tweak their cars.

That’s my opinion, feel free to dump all over me.

George

[formulaben]

I agree. "Spec" is bandied about like it's a dirty word. CART was a de facto spec series for many years, and although the variety is nice, it was readily apparent that the "diverse" years led to the rich teams having an even greater disparity than a spec series would. Certainly the best teams (usually richest) will probably win no matter what, but at least we can narrow it down to driver and team talent, instead of pulling a Penske and buying/making the best chassis/engine. An open spec just means teams like Penske will just buy their way to the championship. I like what we've got going.

On the flip side, look at what happened to Penske when they got it wrong with the Goodyear tires (MB and Lola?). It was pathetic! I'd rather watch a series when the driver wins because he has the best talent, not the best (or worst) car.

[Lizzerd]

I’m really having a tough time trying to dislike the one chassis, one engine Champ Car model. Suppose there were two or more chassis to chose from. At any given event one design is likely to be more competitive than the others. Suppose your favorite driver’s team chose one of the lesser cars. What’s so great about that? Suppose two drivers are very close in points for the championship with one race remaining in the season, and the driver you're rooting for has the chassis that doesn’t work as well on the type of circuit the final race is held on. What’s so great about that?

The same hold true of tires and engines. Don’t we want a level playing field? If everyone has the same power and grip the race is a true competition of racing teams and racing drivers, not of big companies that only really care about the marketing, not about the sport.

The difference between a spec series and the Champ Car model is the fact that in a spec series the teams have very limited (if any) ability to modify, adjust and tweak their cars.

That’s my opinion, feel free to dump all over me.

George

Okay, George, here's my dump on you. :thumbup:
That's only my opinion too, though...

[ChrisB]

I would like to see multiple engine suppliers.... but a single supplier spec chassis. I did some digging, and here's a post I made back in Feb 2003, and the same points still apply:

The case for a spec chassis (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=718)

Let's face it... to most fans, chassis just isn't something that matters much. I really don't see a lot of "chassis fans" in the way there are fans for the engine manufacturer marquee. There aren't many "Reynard fans" or "Dallara fans" like we see "Honda fans" or "Ford fans". Chassis are generally a commodity that most fans take for granted. Nascar has already figured this out, and commoditized their chassis with templates. Fans there don't cheer for the "Monte Carlo" or "Intrepid", they cheer for "Chevy" or "Dodge".

Historically in American formula/OW cars, one chassis eventually tends to overwhelmingly dominate, and since that's what's gonna happen *ANYWAY*, why not embrace it in a way that it can be worked with? Spec a chassis, one that's well tweaked for good competition (IE: more undertray, less wings, etc) and be done with it. Costs will plummet, competition will improve, and nobody will care that everyone is in the exact same Lola or Dallara (or Swift or AAR or Reynard or whoever wins the contracts). All the fans pay attention to is the engine label (or drivers) anyway.

The arms race to make chassis faster (only to be needed to be slowed down some other way) is expensive, and not worth the miniscule attention chassis development gets from fans. The R&D money that would have gone toward making the chassis faster can now go to making it safer. There would be no more of guys like Carl Haas having the best stuff before everyone else. Chassis freezes don't work... because the one chassis that gets it right the first time is the winner... the others must wait until the next cycle. Open supply rules for upgrade kits don't work either... because of the endless need to upgrade to stay quick. Spec the chassis and be done with it.

Besides, chassis makers don't promote a series the way that engine manufacturers do. It's still in the interest of both series to have as many engine marquees as possible (which I would hope CART will do in '05).

There would still be innovation. The chassis could be revised on a 2 or 3 year cycle based on things learned on-track or in the lab. But the innovation emphasis would shift from making the chassis faster to being more safe and efficient. Aesthetics could also be considered... there's no need to have big intakes or winglets all over just to gain a competitive edge... because if everyone is in the same chassis, it's a wash. The design of the car could become simpler and more elegant.

[L1P1]

I’m really having a tough time trying to dislike the one chassis, one engine Champ Car model. Suppose there were two or more chassis to chose from. At any given event one design is likely to be more competitive than the others. Suppose your favorite driver’s team chose one of the lesser cars. What’s so great about that? Suppose two drivers are very close in points for the championship with one race remaining in the season, and the driver you're rooting for has the chassis that doesn’t work as well on the type of circuit the final race is held on. What’s so great about that?

The same hold true of tires and engines. Don’t we want a level playing field? If everyone has the same power and grip the race is a true competition of racing teams and racing drivers, not of big companies that only really care about the marketing, not about the sport.

The difference between a spec series and the Champ Car model is the fact that in a spec series the teams have very limited (if any) ability to modify, adjust and tweak their cars.

That’s my opinion, feel free to dump all over me.

George

But it's (or used to be) usually not a matter one component being simply better than the other. Engine A may have the best driveability, engine B may have the best peak power, and engine C may get the best mileage. That's where it gets interesting. It adds so many dimensions to a race taht make them more interesting to watch as you realize that the leader is going to have to pit one more time and the sixth place car doesn't.

Also, the car loses a lot of its mystique when you look at it and think that, really, there's not a single part on the car that is built to get a competitive edge. You're looking at a really expensive commodity item.

[Sean O'Gorman]

I thought it would bug me, but I've gotten over the whole wanting things to be "the way they were", so I can accept it. I'm just not real interested in most racing right now, but Champ Car seems to be doing well, and at least I'm not complaining anymore. ;)

[Gnam]

I don't think ChampCar's focus on street courses and spec cars is temporary. I believe everyone waiting for multiple manufacturers and a return to permanent road courses is going to be disappointed. They are not running in the streets of San Jose to lure people back to Laguna Seca, and they didn't buy Cosworth to compete with Honda.

[oddlycalm]

I don't think ChampCar's focus on street courses and spec cars is temporary. I believe everyone waiting for multiple manufacturers and a return to permanent road courses is going to be disappointed. They are not running in the streets of San Jose to lure people back to Laguna Seca, and they didn't buy Cosworth to compete with Honda. I'm sure you are right on target, and that's why there are some heavy sighs being heard.


What’s so great about that? Suppose two drivers are very close in points for the championship with one race remaining in the season, and the driver your rooting for has the chassis that doesn’t work as well on the type of circuit the final race is held on. What’s so great about that?

The same hold true of tires and engines. That's certainly one way to look at it. The other side of the coin is what we had for many years, and that was a lot more texture, unknowns and variables. There were years that the Penske cars worked and dominated and years where they sucked horribly. We saw March dominate the field on ovals while the Lola worked better on some road courses, particularly with one of the better drivers in the car. There were years where some engines were dogs, but then every dog eventually had it's day. We saw Swift come out swinging with a win in it's first race then slowly fade out of the picture with a whimper. We got to see years of work pay off at times, and others where it never did. That sub-text was all part of the broader story, and the variation in hardware made it more interesting to those that understood those differences. Since the cars and engines were developed and changed from race to race it was never a static situation.

Also, some traditional fans don't have "favorite drivers" and feel that the driver is just the driver, and he should shut up and drive the car. Focusing on drivers as personalities is a relatively recent occurrence mostly oozing out from NASCAR. At it's most absurd you have the canonization of some guy with a junior high education or the Danica hysteria. :shakehead The fact is that most drivers are one dimensional plate heads that don't have anything intelligent to say just as do other athletes, musicians and folks that lead very channeled lives dedicated to a single physical skill. Outside of Dan Gurney, Mark Donohue and perhaps Rick Mears I can’t recall a whole lot of top level US drivers that really had anything to say that was worth the time it took to listen. There were a few others that showed up for Indy, like Bruce McLaren, that were worthy of a listen as well. The entire oxymoron of “sports personalities” is simply a marketing tool to peel a few more bucks out of the faithful.

The world has changed and racing must adapt to it to survive but I see no reason to forget what we had in happier days. Racing today suffers horribly by comparison to it’s own past, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.

oc

[racer2c]

Bah, if there's one thing that three decades of motor-sport participation and fan involvement has shown me is that you never know what the next year, or the year after that will bring.

I'm not holding my breath for a return to RA or LS, they're gone. But I wouldn'tbe surpirsed if they came back, if the time and situation is right to come back.

The 3 A's have shown that for the most part, they listen to the fans. I'm sure they are well aware that CC fans want RA and LS back.

[mueber]

Bah, if there's one thing that three decades of motor-sport participation and fan involvement has shown me is that you never know what the next year, or the year after that will bring.

I'm not holding my breath for a return to RA or LS, they're gone. But I wouldn'tbe surpirsed if they came back, if the time and situation is right to come back.

The 3 A's have shown that for the most part, they listen to the fans. I'm sure they are well aware that CC fans want RA and LS back.

If Champ Car can make a profit, they will run on the streets of downtown Fort Wayne, or Road America or Michigan International Speedway. Making money begins with promotion, but promotion doesn't guarantee success. The real challenge for the future is to produce a product tens of thousands of people will show up for on any given weekend. Street courses in very Major Statistical Areas are that.

[Insomniac]

They need to bring the racing back. That matters a lot more than whether you have multiple engine/chassis/tire manufacturers. People are losing interest because the racing is boring, not because Honda, Toyota, Ford, Mercedes, Goodyear, Firestone, Lola and Swift aren't competing.

[rabbit]

People are losing interest because the racing is boring...
There are too many different views on what is boring and what is not. My brother thinks the symphony is boring. I can't wait until the next perfromance. Different strokes for different folks. If you try to craft the racing to the tastes of the majority, you end up with a watered-down product such as NASCAR. The No. 1 objective for CCWS right now is to attract more teams and drivers to the series by making it more affordable. You have to have a product to sell before you try to sell it. The new chassis accomplishes that, it seems.

[Insomniac]

There are too many different views on what is boring and what is not. My brother thinks the symphony is boring. I can't wait until the next perfromance. Different strokes for different folks. If you try to craft the racing to the tastes of the majority, you end up with a watered-down product such as NASCAR. The No. 1 objective for CCWS right now is to attract more teams and drivers to the series by making it more affordable. You have to have a product to sell before you try to sell it. The new chassis accomplishes that, it seems.

I think we can all agree the racing today is not the same as the racing in the 90s CART. Whether that's because the series is a spec series or not, I don't know. Too much has changed to say it was this or that, but I personally feel it wasn't the competiton between manufacturers, but rather the changes to the car (aero mostly).

[Rocketdoc]

Champcar is turning from a racing series into an entertainment series and the hundreds of thousands of urban street race fans don't care about the chassis or motor. They care about the event. The only people left arguing about chassis and motor competition are about 15 guys on the internet.

I have to admit, I'm one of those fifteeen.

I'm also a realist in knowing that it's a business, and it needs to fit "the moment" requirements of the business.

I long for the days when there were more engine and chassis available, and even further, when there were just "parity" rules, and you could bring a car that would be considered safe, and your engine was covere under the rules, you could run it.

Of course, the big guys that can commision their own engines and chassis (Penske, et, al.) would always cover the field, but I can dream, can't I?

I'd also pose that when many of us here became anamoured with open wheeled racing, it was the diversity of chassis and engines that made us fans, and so knowledgable about the sport, which breeds intense "fandom" (or as George W. Bush might say, fanderation).

With common engines and chassis, the newer fans will not have the advantage to become as knowledgable and as deeply involved.