GP2 and IndyCar show F1 the way

Animation of the 2012 IndyCar chassis, demonstrating some of the different aerodynamic
modifications that will be permitted under the new regulations.

Changes are afoot in open-wheel motorsport. This summer has seen the unveiling not just of the new GP2 car, which will make its debut in this winter's Asia Series, but also of the Indy Racing League's (IRL) plans for the new fleet of IndyCars in 2012 (see video above). Both series are set for an overhaul in terms of their chassis design, in order to promote cost-effective competition and address the ever-present issue of how to improve overtaking.

In comparison, Formula One's plans for the immediate future extend as far as the reintroduction of KERS from next year and bringing in adjustable rear wings, a concept which has already been derided from several quarters. Both are essentially gimmicks which do nothing to address the underlying problem of so-called 'dirty air' - the turbulent airflow that is created in a car's wake, which makes it difficult for other cars to follow closely when cornering, and so get in a position to overtake. Because of this, it is hard to imagine that either of these measures will improve the show significantly.

Nevertheless, F1's technical Working Groups are currently busy on a new set of aerodynamic and powertrain regulations designed to move the sport forward in 2013. As team representatives sit down for discussions, then, are there any lessons which they might draw from the latest developments in GP2 and IndyCar - two series which have a proven ability to produce close and exciting racing? 

The next generation

Raceability, not technological innovation, has been the main concern of chassis design ever since the GP2 Series, F1's principal feeder formula, began in 2005. The car undergoes a redesign at the end of every three year cycle and the GP2/11 is its third incarnation.

"Our goal is not to find the ultimate performance of the car," says Technical Director Didier Perrin in an interview on the series' official website. "As usual, we will work on two very key points [of] which [the] first is overtaking opportunities. We want to keep providing a good show which is one of our trademarks now. The second key point is the handling of the car. The GP2/11 must remain very difficult to drive: the drivers’ skills are better displayed that way."

Of course as a one-make series, GP2 has very different aims to those of Formula One designers, who have to concern themselves with ultimate performance and aerodynamic efficiency in order to gain an edge over their competitors. Tied into that is good handling, because a car that is easier to drive can be relied upon to corner faster, to have better traction in acceleration zones and to be more stable under braking.

And yet GP2 has consistently provided a good platform for racing and overtaking since its inception, whereas it is hard to say the same about F1 in recent years. Part of the reason is that the latter by its nature tends to be more conservative: a loose alliance of commercial and sporting interests in which any attempts to alter the status quo are met with resistance. The technical regulations have changed remarkably little since the end of the turbo era - the aerodynamic changes in 2009 notwithstanding.

But there are signs that F1 is learning from GP2's example. One of the rumoured rule changes for 2013 will be to allow designers to make greater use of the 'ground effect'. This phenomenon, which has long been exploited in GP2 and other series around the world, involves shaping the underside of the chassis to create a region of low pressure beneath the car when it is in motion. This sucks it down towards the racetrack and reduces the need for complicated downforce-producing structures on top of the bodywork, which are the primary cause of 'dirty air'. (Current F1 regulations require the car's underside to be flat, preventing designers from fully exploiting the ground effect.)

Combined with the reintroduction of turbo engines, the new technical regulations could well herald a revolution in F1, and their announcement will be eagerly anticipated.

Lessons from America

It might also be worthwhile FOTA, FOM and the FIA looking across the Atlantic to recent developments in the IndyCar scene, to see how another open-wheel series is tackling similar problems. For a few years the series' viewing figures have been falling; the machinery has not changed significantly since the current Dallara chassis was introduced in 2004 and Honda became the sole engine supplier in 2006.

The series organisers, the IRL, were concerned about keeping the formula up-to-date but - crucially - without the cost of participation becoming too high. To deal with these issues, it set up a seven-man advisory panel known as ICONIC (Innovative, Competitive, Open-Wheel, New, Industry-Relevant, Cost-Effective) to decide upon a new chassis design for IndyCar which would enter service in time for 2012.

The new platform (announced in June) will have at its heart an all-new spec-Dallara tub - to be known as the IndyCar Safety Cell - on top of which teams and external manufacturers will be able to design their own aerodynamic packages, including front and rear wings, sidepods and engine covers. The engine supply will also be opened up: whereas currently Honda supply the whole grid, from 2012 any manufacturer will be free to produce a powerplant. As well as Honda, Ford, Cosworth and Mazda are all rumoured to be interested.

The proposed platform is neither a one-make series, nor is it fully constructor-driven (since the core chassis remains a standard component) but instead something new: a customer series in which teams will be able to bolt on the bodywork and engine combinations that best suit them. The result? Cost-effective racing and potentially a bigger, stronger grid.

Moreover, if it attracts major players from the automotive industry back to the series then it may help to revitalise interest from the public. So far it seems to be working: already Lotus has declared its intention to develop its own aero package, showing that at least some manufacturers support the principle, and more may well follow their lead in time: there is still over a year-and-a-half until the beginning of the 2012 season.

Future formula

Could Formula One adopt a similar model in future? On the face of it the chances are slim. It's likely that the big carmakers in particular - Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault - would have major reservations over a format in which major components were built by a third-party manufacturer, even if the overall packages were still branded under their names. Only a couple of years ago Ferrari threatened to quit when the FIA put forward its proposals for a standard engine, arguing that the very concept went against the principle of technological innovation that the sport was founded upon.

At the same time the smaller independent outfits - Williams, Force India, Sauber, Virgin and Hispania - would no doubt have their own concerns about new customer teams purchasing bodywork and engines from the major manufacturers, which could be seen a cheap ticket to the top. Added to that is the problem that customer cars are currently prohibited; for the FIA to allow them again would require a significant about-turn, which seems unlikely at present.

However, a standard core chassis or "F1 Safety Cell" - without the customer principle - might be an easier sell. The big carmakers would still be able to innovate and to spend what they want on all other aspects of chassis design, and would have license to compete in terms of engine development, but the standard tub would help to cut costs considerably, lowering the entry point for potential new teams.

It's an intriguing idea, and not as radical as might initially appear. Whether or not it has promise will become clear when the first of the new IndyCar generation take to the racetrack around 19 months from now. 

Video originally uploaded to YouTube by indycars.