This is from Ben Bowlby: “The front wheels steer the car; they have up to 23 degrees of steering angle each way – slightly more than the current IndyCar has at present. The differential, located in the gearbox, has the capability to actively control relative rear wheel speed (but not the average speed, which would be traction control and this is not part of the differential’s functionality). This effect can be described as torque vectoring or torque steer. This is not essential for achieving steering of the car or cornering but it is probably the most consistent way of altering the balance of the car and can be driver controlled with a position switch in the cockpit that alters the sensitivity of the torque vectoring. To be clear – the rear wheels do NOT steer and do not create the force required to steer the car.”

That makes me quite happy to say that my presumptions were inaccurate, and even more puzzled as to how this concept vehicle will actually change vector.

Andy Bernstein

These are great evolutionary designs, with the safety improvements the IICS is looking for. The common tub for IndyLights is a practical approach.

However, I don’t think they have gone far enough to change the face of IndyCar racing, or demonstrate enough reason to dump the existing supplier for a new one.

Dallara #3 still gets my vote to satisfy all of the criteria. It’s a more radical evolution that could still possibly enable old equipment to run on the race track along side it.

Everybody wants variety, no manufacturers will subsidize it. Alternate body kits can be made for any chassis that receives final approval, and Lola did a nice job of that.

Still, nobody can build prototypes until IICS tells them what general configuration is going in the engine bay.

Andy Bernstein

Usually…

Here’s Lola:

http://lolacars.com/newsstory.asp?NewsId=189

Watching USF1 trying to get a tub built and crash-tested might be a relevant example.

I believe Lola and Swift have plenty of other business, and I know for sure that Dallara does. Making small batch runs of low cost components for somebody elses’s race car doesn’t sound like a lucrative proposition for them to me, either.

Had Delta actually built a car to demonstrate proof of the theoretical model, and in so doing assembled the list of authorized subcontractors who could get the job done, then we would be in a different place.

At the moment, IICS is expected to accept the Delta on a wing and a prayer. And it doesn’t have any wings.

You are one of the very few on the interwebs who is envisioning the big picture.

A Dallara factory on the side lawn of the Speedway would be the best solution for all concerned, even the owners who have signed on to the Delta force.

Open subcontracts for local parts manufacture. Loosen licensing requirements to allow competitive suppliers. Send your young driving prospect across the street to pick out a Topolino to race in his ladder series event.

Delta wants to use a $140K bespoke ARE MZR-R racing engine, detuned. That is not open competition, nor is it economical. Better domestic sources already exist.

Delta pronounces the eco-friendly value of a 10 MPG threshold. Manufacturers are fighting to reach 40, not investing in racing development programs. Honda redesigned the HI V8 engines to run on eco-friendly ethanol. Nobody cared.

Full ground effects designs are inherently unstable in pitch or yaw events. This design must surely be accompanied by active suspension control, in addition to the “steer by wire” torque application system. Neither are examples of simple or economical solutions. They are not innovations to existing road car technology. The Delta car is an intricate, unproven, masterful design exercise. I like race cars.

Owners cry in unison about the cost of equipment. Many could not afford to field the Delta if it were available today for free. The cost of any new chassis and engine package will reduce their operating budgets by maybe 25%, after the investment of $1.2M for their new car and a spare. Randy Bernard knows the problem is revenues, and hopefully he will realize that there may only be four owners left to buy new gear in 2012… Delta Wing charter member or not.

Brian Barnhart recently discussed the chassis selection with the phrase “We don’t want to get into a group think situation”.

The Delta group has certainly done a lot of thinking. Despite the fact that they are all very smart men, it doesn’t mean they came up with good answers. Or strategies to implement them in the days to come.

Andy Bernstein

I like a ton of what they have to say, and the car actually bothers me less with some time to digest. But it’s just such a vague set of principles so far, it’s tough to tell if it’s a legit solution or not.

Great points all around. I was actually thinking the other day “why not convince Dallara and swift to open source their design as well?”.

My biggest bone of contention, a question I’d still like addressed, is this; the IRL already struggles with having a relevant feeder series that prepares its drivers to man an indycar. ALL open wheel feeder series in this country, be it Star M, Indy Lights, or Atlantics; would be a futile stepping stone to a series full of these cars. There’s no way they handle anything even remotely like a typical open wheel car.

My other bone of contention is there won’t be a working prototype of any of the chasis until after a choice has been made.