There will always be a place for the Delta Wing down at Arena Essex...

I shamefully have to be the one choosing BAT here, I mean, it is not really that ugly, i actually like it.

Good choice, imo. I expected they'd go for one of the more conventional approaches, but the Dallara designs still look quite individual, more so than the LalalalaLola one.

My #1 choice would have been the Lola. Looks the best, most simplistic.

Dallara will be nice I guess, looks a bit sleeker than the current ones, and gets back a bit to the early / mid 90's style. Swift was a lesser choice, but would have been nice to have Lola + Dallara or even + Swift.

BAT and Deltawing are abominations and should never have been in consideration. The designers of them should be prohibited from further design for IndyCar.

If only they could bring back the hanford device and go back to tracks like Michigan and Californa with it, would be most epic.

Quote from ACCAkut :

The IndyCar Wiki article has been updated already with all info.

Quote from Wiki :

The new open engine formula announced allows any Turbocharged 2.4 liter engine it has to have up to 6 cylinders with horsepower from 550 to 700 hp. The formula would allow hybrid systems, KERS system similar to Formula 1 and other engine enhancements to bring other engine manufactures in so to have competition to keep Honda in the series. The formula starts in 2012

"Has to have up to 6 cyls" - has this changed? IIRC can have up to 6 cyl.

Quote from nikopdr :

I shamefully have to be the one choosing BAT here, I mean, it is not really that ugly, i actually like it.

I liked the BAT too

Quote from deggis :

"Has to have up to 6 cyls" - has this changed? IIRC can have up to 6 cyl.

What's the difference? It means the same to me, just with different wording.
The difference between "has to have" and "can have" is removed by "up to".

Quote from RasmusL :

What's the difference? It means the same to me, just with different wording.
The difference between "has to have" and "can have" is removed by "up to".

"Has to have" means that it is a requirement, "can have" means that it is an option.

You'll end up with that anyway

swift design only have light is special then other

Dallara win because the build a factory in US

I vote for Swift, but Lola and Dallara are nice too.

Is this the first time a race car was so intentionally "styled" for visual appeal?

Seems kinda shallow to me.

Quote from Mattesa :

Is this the first time a race car was so intentionally "styled" for visual appeal?

Seems kinda shallow to me.

Nope. It's been done a lot, and 90% of all pure-bred race cars now are designed by a designer before being extensively wind-tunnel tested. The Aston Martin LMP car was a re-styled Lola chassis, done specifically to make it prettier (and then all the mistakes fixed again by Lola, ha!)

Quote from Mattesa :

Is this the first time a race car was so intentionally "styled" for visual appeal?

Seems kinda shallow to me.

Not when racing is a business activity heavily depended on the image it creates.

Quote from MAGGOT :

Nope. It's been done a lot, and 90% of all pure-bred race cars now are designed by a designer before being extensively wind-tunnel tested. The Aston Martin LMP car was a re-styled Lola chassis, done specifically to make it prettier (and then all the mistakes fixed again by Lola, ha!)

I have less of a problem with this approach. If a designer can work within the rule book but still come out with a competitive and good looking car, then that's exactly what industrial design is all about.

On the other hand these proposals are more or less for a somewhat spec package (correct me if I misunderstand) where the design is intentionally extreme to draw eyeballs. Though there's nothing wrong with playing the game to JJ72's point. The Daytona Prototypes are on the opposite end of the stick; they're just too effing ugly to watch.

As I understand it teams will be able to buy (or manufacture their own?) different extensive aero packages for their cars based around only the central tub, so all going to plan the actual shape shown there may end up varying quite a bit hopefully.

yes indeed...

Ah okay, then there's still some hope of varied looking cars then. I'd say the Dallara is one of the more conservative looking of the proposals.

Nice choice, swift and lola would have been OK too. The others had too much protection around the wheels, more like a prototype.

I hope they keep the aero similar to the current, so we can watch them in close battle around WG (something F1 cars can not even dream of)

Quote from 5haz :

As I understand it teams will be able to buy (or manufacture their own?) different extensive aero packages for their cars based around only the central tub, so all going to plan the actual shape shown there may end up varying quite a bit hopefully.

My assumption was it would more be in the form of different approaches to wings, kinda like hose the current front wing and nosecone is a separate unit; the teams could modify the wing (with very strict regulations). I assumed it would along those lines.

Quote from Mattesa :

I have less of a problem with this approach. If a designer can work within the rule book but still come out with a competitive and good looking car, then that's exactly what industrial design is all about.

On the other hand these proposals are more or less for a somewhat spec package (correct me if I misunderstand) where the design is intentionally extreme to draw eyeballs. Though there's nothing wrong with playing the game to JJ72's point. The Daytona Prototypes are on the opposite end of the stick; they're just too effing ugly to watch.

Every prototype came from the designer the same as these proposals; slightly outlandish, etc. The final car will more than likely be much toned down from what you see in these renders. I guarantee you the final car will not look exactly like what you see here.

Quote from MAGGOT :

My assumption was it would more be in the form of different approaches to wings, kinda like hose the current front wing and nosecone is a separate unit; the teams could modify the wing (with very strict regulations). I assumed it would along those lines.

They're allowed to change body panels as well.

Quote from deggis :

"Has to have up to 6 cyls" - has this changed? IIRC can have up to 6 cyl.

Quote from zeugnimod :

"Has to have" means that it is a requirement, "can have" means that it is an option.

It's just poor wording. The two mean the same.

"Has to have" is negated by "up to".

"Has to have 6 cyls" = Must have only 6 cyls, no more and no less.

"Has to have up to 6 cyls" = Has to have cylinders, up to six.

The real technical regulations are probably better worded than the wiki article.

I see it clearly now that you said it.

Quote from samjh :

It's just poor wording. The two mean the same.

"Has to have" is negated by "up to".

"Has to have 6 cyls" = Must have only 6 cyls, no more and no less.

"Has to have up to 6 cyls" = Has to have cylinders, up to six.

The real technical regulations are probably better worded than the wiki article.

Ok...