Dallara Eager to Build on 14 Years of Success with IndyCar

For many fans, IndyCar and Dallara have become synonymous. Heading into the battle to become the next IndyCar maker, the head of R&D at Dallara Automobili says that familiarity offers both advantages and challenges.

“The most relevant benefit strength of our 14-year involvement with IndyCar is down to people,” said Andrea Toso Head of Research and Development and US Racing Business Leader for Dallara Automboili, based in Parma, Italy. “The core team of Dallara people has not changed since 1997 — myself, the chief aerodynamicist, the designers, the technical liaison engineer, the operation manager in Indianapolis. We know what it takes. I think we have a good grasp of the teams’ conscious and unconscious needs, including drivers, team managers, mechanics and engineers.

"The priority list of the Indy Racing League is planted deeply in our company culture, we respect their needs and we continuously adapt our company, our resources, our knowledge to stay ahead of their needs. Bottom line we have great respect for the IndyCar as a community, where different players have different needs, different priorities, different objectives.”

Toso said he and his team also fully recognize the potential pitfalls of being current car maker in the IndyCar replacement derby.

“The potential disadvantage of the typical incumbent might be that you tend to become complacent of the situation,” he said. “But this is not really the case here. If we do not deliver a good product and if we do not continuously improve it, teams will immediately complain and legitimately find alternative solutions to their real needs.”

As for the current Dallara -- which has been criticized by some fans -- Toso said criticisms should be taken in the context of all the current chassis has achieved.

“The current car has been doing a fantastic job. It is hard to ask for more, given the context,” he said. “A chassis designed to race for three years just on ovals has ended up with being used for nine years ( with two more to come) both on ovals and on road courses without major revisions. That’s outstanding in terms of safety, strength and speed.

"But this is the past. We can and will achieve much better than this and we can leverage in all the knowledge, the design criteria, the data analysis, the aerodynamics, the cockpit requirements, the safety criteria, in a word… our experience, gained in this Series in the past 14 years, without interruptions and in many other racing series ( GP2, GP3, F3, World Series ) in the most recent years. Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted. In our company culture, Failure is not just acceptable, it is often essential.”

Safety, Strength, Speed ... In that Order

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.”

Along with the fundamental 3S approach, Toso said his group's efforts were guided by the criteria listed by the league here: safe, raceable cost-effective, US-made, Less mass/more efficient, relevant technology, modern look and green.

“The order is quite meaningful,” Toso said. “We have to address safety first, then the raceability (close proximity of cars during the race action, overtaking, etc ). Our goals, ideas, vision have to reflect these priorities in order for us to be eligible for the design and manufacturing of the new car.”

Reducing Costs by 45%

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.”

Given the slow-motion evolution — which ntretched the chassis behind its estimated life span of three years and added expections unforeseen in when the car was originally designed — Toso said the current Dallara has proven incredibly durable and versatile. The new process with a new set of expectations will help design in many more efficiencies, he said.

“As I see the car design now, it is uselessly over-engineered, with too many options, too many parts. Two different front noseboxes (road course and superspeedway), spool and diff, two different left hand suspensions (for ovals and road courses), two different brake packages (road courses and ovals). With a new design many of these options can go away, parts should and could be designed for multiple functions. This will reduce the inventory, increase quantities and cut costs.”

The Dallara Designs and Delta Wing

Starting with the stated criteria from the league, and knowing the oval/road/street course challenges the machine will face, Toso said Dallara produced their three designs.

“The three concepts differ, essentially, by the bodywork,” he said. “The safety and the ‘cost-to-design, cost-to-manufacture, cost-to service, cost-to maintain’ are almost the same.”

Toso said he finds reactions from fans that the concepts represent a conservative (concept 1) middle (concept 2) and radical (concept 3) approach “interesting.”

“We wanted to demonstrate that the very same goals can be achieved in quite different ways. The fans, the sanctioning body, the team owners, the drivers , now can express their preferences based on different platforms which fulfill the ‘chassis criteria’ as set (by the league).”

Similarities between Dallara Concept 3 and the DeltaWing proposal are coincidental, Toso said.

“We didn’t know what the Delta Wing was going to release. Our third concept has been influenced by the legacy of many Italian automotive stylists and bodywork designers; I would say it expresses the Italian culture of a continuous, harmonic, proportioned piece of engineering. Beautifulness, after all is all about functionality, overall proportion, and relative size of the components.”

As for the DeltaWing, Toso offered only that it “is a nice looking vehicle. Intriguing ideas and ideas are always welcomed. Honestly, I do not know enough of this design so to be able to express my opinion as an engineer.”

Chassis Competition?

Like other car makers, Toso said the question of chassis competitions — prized by fans as a way to bring back the unpredictable, interesting and innovative racing of the 60s and 70s — is rather complex with many economic and logistic variables.

“If you’re asking whether we welcome competition or not, based on a common set of rules as set forth by the league, I can say we are ready compete,” he said. “Whether or not we will actually see a competitive series, with more than one chassis manufacturer and/or more than one engine manufacturer, this is up to the league to decide.”

One catch, Toso and other engineers are quick to point out, is that competition occurs in the real world, where everything has a price tag.

“Open competition does come with a cost. Freedom has always a cost associated to it,” he said.

Is Open Source the Answer?

As for the “open source” concept touted by DeltaWing — where essentially every part of the car will be open to development by anyone, with all progress being folded back into the design — Toso said that “might actually lead to increasing costs.”

“Let’s imagine ten or fifteen different suspension designs (for the car), all approved,” Toso said. “ Imagine you are a team owner, you want and have to try all of them, so you end up buying and track testing all of them. Is this less expensive? The area of competition should not be down to the parts, the area of competition should focus on the people, how they engineer the cars, in all aspects, including costs, performance, reliability. Randy Pausch wrote [The Last Lecture]: “…Engineering is about doing the best you can with limited resources …”

The “Open Source” concept may also have the unintended consequence of minimizing the sense of accountability for component performance.

"When you open up an area for competition (aerodynamics, cooling, transmission, survival cell, engine, tires, etc ) then you have to determine responsibilities for things like failure, inadequate performance, abuse or improper use. f and when a myriad of suppliers is involved, then nobody is responsible, nobody is accountable, nobody steps up to solve the issue, as simple as the issue might be.”

While competition can drive down costs (when profit motive encourages rivals to make sales by doing something better and cheaper), Toso said “bottom line, the decision makers, here the League and its officials, have to hit the right balance between competition (open area for development) and non-competition (a common baseline). Tough job.”

Is DeltaWing Tilting the Playingfield?

So with several owners lining up behind one horse in the race (the DeltaWing), does Dallara feel that they still have a legitimate shot at winning the contract?

“I think we did our honest job. We might have now to explain a little better and deeper our concepts to the team owners, to the race engineers, to the drivers, to the fans, etc.” he said. “We respect all parties involved, all of them actually express true needs. All these needs have to be conveyed by the League into an adequate product. Bottom line, we have to work with the league in order to deliver and execute.”

More Questions for Andrea Toso, Head of Research and Development and US Racing Business Leader for Dallara Automboili

pressdog: Fans seem to think that the concept drawings are the final designs? Is that true, or how much will things change from the drawings your released to final presentation ... and will they change even after that?

Toso: Concept drawings and final design are two different things. “Concept” assesses the safety requirements and the main dimensions ( wheelbase, track width, monocoque length, front side and rear deformable structure lengths / thickness, suspension layout, engine dimensions, transmission layout, fuel tan capacity, cockpit dimension and driver seat position, first order layout for cooling system, brakes, “Final design” assesses the details ( wishbone thickness, suspension geometry, electronic layout, driver’s controls, wing adjustments, air jacks, etc ). Design is a continuous learning process, like life. It is never over. Design involves multiple and on going iterations with the drivers, the mechanics, the engineers, the sanctioning body, the team owners ( sponsorship space is never enough !) the TV people, the tire people, the engine people, the electronics people, the transmission people, etc. Many stake holders actually

pressdog: Wheel-to-wheel and nose-to-tail racing is well up on the desires for fans. How much fan input or consideration went into your plans? How did you take the temperature of fans in this process? Did you do any sort of testing, surveys, etc?

Toso: We have to remember that motor racing has to be fun, has to entertain, has to raise emotions. Sanctioning bodies have to deliver entertainment for the fans by providing adequate levels of safety for drivers and spectators, and improve these levels by evaluating in beforehand so many and always new unknowns.. Strength and Speed is ultimately down to the manufacturers. Let’s not forget, also, that we are dealing with open wheel racing cars which, in case of the lightest contact, have the tendency to lose control. The rules and consequently the design therefore have to provide adequate levels of passive safety ( crash structures ), aero straight line stability to lift off and aero stability to yaw- and-roll when the drivers slide and lose control of their vehicles. Fans are the ultimate judges, at the end of the day they pay the ticket, so all the IndyCar community has to respect the fans.

pressdog: What’s your view of fan input on the cars? How seriously should officials at Dallara and IndyCar take fan input?

Toso: Having said that fans are the ultimate judges, Dallara and the IndyCar have to provide the adequate products and are ultimately responsible for the products. The debate is: if the fans have the ultimate power to buy into the product, are they responsible and accountable for the selection of the product? Probably no as a matter of fact. Ultimately the Indy Racing League and the manufacturers ( tires, engine, chassis ) are responsible and accountable for the product, that’s the difficulty of the job.

pressdog: What’s your reaction to the fan response to your designs thus far?

Toso: We were quite positively impressed. We didn’t expect so many fans would have liked the most “evolutionary” concept. So many interesting comments and feedback, really! We might open a forum on our own website in order to channel this collective intelligence into good ideas. There is so much interesting out there in the real world.

pressdog: What do you gather are the main concerns for fans?

Toso: The car has to be relevant in terms of emotion. Above all, the fans need to think about drivers like heroes that can master driving a car at frightening speed on the straights and into the corners. Yes, definitely the fans are looking for heroes. They like the drivers’ stories, the drama behind them. In twenty years from now, nobody will remember the cars, the engines, the setup, … everybody will remember the heroes.

pressdog: You talked in your release about making these cars in Speedway. Is that a key to your proposal?

Toso: One of the chassis criteria, #4 actually, is US made. Yes it is relevant. If we make the cars in Europe, that means failing the criteria. I’d like to expand a bit more on this subject. The idea of setting up a Dallara USA near the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is not just a mere fulfillment of the Indy Racing League criteria. We believe it is essential for us to be more connected to the IndyCar community and we can achieve this goal through a few key elements.

First, we will bring to the table our engineering competencies and expand them by promoting high quality jobs in Indianapolis; second we will create close connections with the local universities; third we want to create an engineering knowledge center there and install a state-of-the art high performance driver simulator, where professional drivers and engineers can improve their understanding of the car in a cost efficient way and where the race fans get more connected to the IndyCar community. In essence, Dallara has something to give to the Indianapolis community and for sure Dallara has something to learn as well.

pressdog: One of the criteria was a greener race car. How do you plan to address that?

Toso: Green is chassis criteria #8. Lighter is a great way of translating the criteria into something understandable by the fans. Less fuel consumption is another way. The use of recyclable materials is again another way, same for the total cost of ownership, including cost per mileage, cost of disposal are relevant when we evaluate the “green” effect.

pressdog: What do you think are the strengths or advantages of your plan or approach?

Toso: Our strength is that we firmly believe that our concepts have fulfilled the chassis criteria as set forth by the IRL.

For more on the Dallara designs, check the latest online edition of Dallara magazine HERE or visit their site at www.dallara.it

Related links:

• Swift Urges Fan Input, Says Designs Still Evolving
• Lola Says Cars will "Improve the Show"
  
• BAT Becomes Fifth Entrant in Design Derby
• Ben Bowlby talks to Robin Miller about the DeltaWing
• Ben Bowlby talks to Curt Cavin of the Indy Star about the DeltaWing.
• John Barnes, owner of Panther Racing, talks to Chris Estrada of IndyRacingRevolution.com about the DeltaWing.
• More pressdog.com posts on the chassis competition.

Make yourself heard. Please comment below or on your favorite blog, add your votes to this online poll, and leave comments in the HVM 2012 IndyCar concept fan forum.

Comments

[jeff]

Pressdog,
I love the information I get from this webpage but sometimes you opinions seem to get in the way. Don't you think Dallara and Swift love giving interviews to someone who already said that would stop watching if DeltaWing (the car furtherest along in development, with the most support on the paddock) gets picked?

[pressdog]

Who cares WHY they talk to me? During my nine years as professional newspaper reporter nobody once cared WHY someone gave me an interview. Seems to me it's an issue of fairness to give each maker a chance to explain their designs, etc. DeltaWing is well on record talking about their theories, etc. My only motivation here is to give fans similar information from the other makers.

[stick500]

In defense of P-dog, that's the nature of the beast when you run your own blog- he doesn't have a seperate "opinion page staff" and a "news staff"- he has to be all of them at once.
Now just because he's stated an opinion on something, doesn't mean he's not able to ask tough, un-biased questions in an interview.

[jeff]

Yeah but this post is written as news story.
It lacks the honesty of saying "As someone who has already dumped on DeltaWing tell me what's wrong with it so I don't need to defend what they are doing."

[The Speedgeek]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, Jeff, but...it's a blog. There's no mission statement for "fair and balanced" anything here, I don't think (though I may be wrong, maybe it's in the bowels of the Wordpress engine somwhere). Plus, I don't really imagine that anybody is going to form their opinion off of just what gets written on this site.

'Dog's right, anyway. Gordon Kirby has written roughly 238,000 words extolling the virtues of the Delta Wing. Marshall Pruett has written about one half of that amount. Robin Miller has written a couple of columns about the Delta Wing as well. I appreciate those viewpoints, but I think it's interesting to get similar (sound bite-friendly, but still insightful) takes from the other interested manufacturers.

[jeff]

Points taken. But as someone who reads Pdog because the love information he gets I feel shorted when he uses his platform (and it is a big platform) to make what I feel is such a narrow opinion of where AOWR can go.
Just my two cents...
Maybe I should comment more or stop reading. It's a free country...

[pressdog]

I don't feel like any reasonable person giving this a fair reading would come away thinking it's slanted any way, pro or con, any potential chassis maker. I'm just asking the questions I think fans want to know and letting the interviewee answer however he or she wants. I can assure you Mr. Toso's answers are unedited, or I'm quite sure I would hear from him about it. Plus, as big as anyone thinks my platform is, let's not kid ourselves. The vast vast majority of IndyCar customers have no idea what a "pressdog" is. I certainly have no illusions about that.

[Mike R]

Seems the blog has become slightly more like "news" lately, which is fine. The humor aspects will return/remain at the appropriate time, I'm sure. I appreciate the info you're sharing here, P'dog. I don't see Speed or anyone else really giving it up so freely and equally...call it fair and balanced.

[Roy Hobbson]

I can't help but picture you writing this on a 700-pound IBM Selectric typewriter in a dimly lit study, wearing a fedora & smoking a Pall Mall while screaming at your secretary to bring you a Rob Roy. Which she of course does -- prompting you to thank her by slapping her on the ass. Oh, and there's a pistol on your desk too. And yesterday's horse racing results from Pimlico.

THIS IS OLD-SCHOOL JOURNALISM RIGHT HERE!!!!

Mad props to you. (And also your secretary, bless her heart.)

[redd]

Hobbson makes me laugh aloud.

[Spencer]

Did anyone see the caption on the first photo in Dallara Magazine? It was wrong. The two drivers in the photo are Ed Carpenter and Justin Wilson. Seems odd that a company looking to sell a car to a series wouldn't know who was driving them.

Just saying.

P.S I think it's a great idea to get more information from the other manufacturers. I, for one, would love to hear more from Swift and especially Lola.

[pressdog]

I'm here to serve, Spencer. All about Swift: http://tinyurl.com/yls75h6

JESUS Hobbson, do you have a camera in my office? ... Now get me a Scotch and water, doll.

[Demond Sanders]

LOL at the above. Has anyone else noticed the inverse relationship between the health of the ICS and the quality of its blogging?

It's freaking me out.

[pressdog]

Just added a bunch of links at the end of the post to the same kind of thing on Swift and all the DeltaWing stories elsewhere.

[Toso]

Interesting comments from all you guys.
I confirm that my answers to Bill's questions are all unedited.
Here is a request from me... please, and you are really welcome, ...bring to the table counter arguments to evidence the weak points in my reasoning. Thanks again

[Eric]

Thanks for the information. Always a pleasure reading this site.

[Scott]

I would question exactly how much of the proposed cost cutting would actually be realized by the teams with the Dallara plan.

Right up front there is zero savings from an engine perspective. Chassis cost cutting alone will not make it affordable to run the series if the attendance/tv ratings trend continues as it has over the past 3 years.

Also, when you consider that many teams are already fielding equipment that is several years old at a discounted rate you simply cannot argue that the field fillers will realize a total operations cost that is more than 10% lower. In many cases, teams that rely on second hand chassis would see far greater financial burdens in 2012 because they will be forced to purchase all new equipment and write off the used equipment they already own.

We know that the field will be greatly leveled during the first 1-2 seasons under a new package because the individual development work to stratify the performance will not be in place. However, we also know that the teams who have more substantial funding will again have a significant advantage by the 4th and 5th years of such a package. This is already a major contributor to the overall lack of intrigue in the league as it exists and the proposed package does nothing to overcome it.

The problems within Indycar racing go well beyond the base cost of a rolling chassis. I have the utmost respect for the the accomplishments and performance of Dallara and the company's employees. My concern is that the proposal does not offer the kind of paradigm shift that could fully divert the series away from the unsustainable path that it is on. What I see on the table is merely an extension of the current paradigm that can do no more than postpone the inevitable.

[David B]

I really hope Dallara gets in (they're my number 1 option).... or Swift... or Lola... Or even BAT Engineering....

As long as Delta-Gross doesn't get the decision, I'll be happy. If Delta-Wing gets it I'll have to find a new favourite motorsport :(

I don't want to watch people racing in phallic shaped motorised tricycles.

[Toso]

my reply to Scott. We are not involved with the choice of engine. My honest perception is that there will be considerable ( -20% !? ) savings in this department too. An architecture smaller than the current V8 is going to hit the track for sure.
On the chassis department, the current car was designed in an era of comeptition ( Panoz, Gforce ) current parts are over engineered, light weight, but are frozen in design. Multiple parts serve for road courses and speedway, the new chassis coould and should be designed with multifunciton and longer life in mind.
In racing, especially at the Indycar level, the equipment has a limited life, it is hard to think to use it safely over multiple seasons. teams can be informed now to phase out their equipment over the 2010 and 2011 then use the cars as show cars.
One compelte car, current spec , full of options for road course a speewady, ( two suspensions, two brake package, two aero config, two noseboxes, a bunch of radiator opitons ) is close to 750 k$, let's say they use the same car for three years. teams spend 500k$ per year in spares and crashes ( highly varibale tough! ), so it is 750/3 + 500= 750 k$ per year per year, with the current package.
New car could come at <400 k$, spares down to 250$ per year. With simple maths 650 k$ < 650 k$, you see that it is already less expensive for a one yar budget!!!