NASCAR's use of a common control chassis is one move that could be mirrored here in V8 Supercars.

Opinion is divided amongst the V8 Supercar fraternity regarding the future direction of technical specifications. As our series evolves, the comparison between home-grown Aussie V8s and the wildly popular US NASCAR equivalent becomes more apparent. The most recent similarity is the proposed common control chassis (TEGA Control Floorpan) – mooted for implementation with the new VE Commodore in 2007 – as a measure to reduce costs and repairs of V8 Supercars.

Whichever way one views this new enterprise, there is an obvious resemblance to the burgeoning US stock car series which itself is gradually tightening control of technical regulations in a bid to contain expenditure. For example, much planning and forethought has been invested into an implementation strategy for NASCAR’s new-generation ‘Car of Tomorrow’ to streamline the impact of its phasing out of existing equipment.

Making V8 Supercars cheaper and easier to repair would not only prolong the life of the car but potentially allow more races on the calendar.

The TEGA concept of a common platform for Commodores and Falcons mirrors what has essentially been the mainstay of American racing, where various manufacturers ‘hang’ their particular bodywork from what are basically identical chassis. Front and rear clips are designed to be readily replaceable in the event of crash damage, thereby prolonging the life of a car.

Recent initiatives by the V8 Supercar board have emphasised the need to simplify construction and subsequent repair, particularly in view of a more compacted calendar and the successful introduction of international ‘flyaway’ events. However, the capital expenditure of having spare cars lying idle as a contingency is a prospect unwelcome to many V8 teams given the price tag of $400,000 for a new car. Hence the need to reduce the overbuild build cost of new cars is an economic reality.

Cheaper construction would permit more cars per franchise and the potential to run more races. Running events on a more regular frequency would garner more media interest instead of the current delay between meetings that makes it hard to stimulate publicity. More events mean amplified exposure at the obvious expense of greater operating budgets, but the flipside is potentially better value for increased sponsorship revenue. It’s a conundrum that sees growth currently limited by simple economics; not that we’d ever scale the heights currently experienced in the United States, which has ten times our population base.

NASCAR’s prime series, the Nextel Cup, comprises a 10-month season of 34 races that attract an annual attendance of 13 million patrons; all this from a purported fan base of 75 million which equates to a third of the entire US adult population. As the number-two rated sport on television, NASCAR boasts weekly telecasts to more than 150 countries in 23 different languages. With over $US2 billion in licensed sales, sponsors received $US5.4 billion in total on-screen exposure value in 2004. As far as brand awareness is concerned, NASCAR’s recognition factor is actually higher than icons such as Google and iPod in the US!

NASCAR is a marketer's dream, with a fan base of 75 million and higher recognition factor than Apple's iconic iPod.

More racing with less expensive cars is one of the goals for future growth, but will it increase crowds at events, V8 Supercars Australia think so.

While the recent V8 Supercar Ferodo Triple Challenge at Symmons Plains was watched by the biggest sporting crowd in Tasmanian history, no less than 17 NASCAR events are in the top-20 attended sporting events in all of America. Clearly the growth and success of the US stock car scene is a model well worth emulating, if not replicating pertinent areas, as there is no point in reinventing the wheel.

As we alluded to, not everyone is convinced, however, that our current formula is flawed. Triple Eight Engineering principal Roland Dane, renowned for championing cost containment, considers the existing technical regulations to be a comparatively good example. "The cost of a car itself may have been overplayed," admits Dane, "as you only have to look at Ambrose’s car. It may have cost SBR $400,000 to construct but they have had three years from it. Today that Falcon is probably worth $250,000; so they have had to write off only $50,000 per year which is nothing really.

Canberra was the first event where V8 Supercars had reverse grid races. With reverse-grid racing on the agenda next year, bringing down costs will be crucial.

"To me what controls cost in this category – or cost in any sport – is what value for money you get. If, say, we were on Channel 10 at 8 o’clock every night then I could get $20-30m in sponsorship to run the team. What is good for us is the way the championship is giving better value for money as, next year; we will have three races per weekend at nine events. A race on Saturday is giving value for money to those at the circuit and those races will be shown on Saturday night so that is a massive positive.

"The way we spend money is in the number of people we use to turn the cars around, the cost of attending events, catering, flights, accommodation, etc. All of that costs money so it is important to contain as much of that as possible and that the championship continues to increase value for money to justify our existence."

The direction that V8 Supercars is heading must be carefully orchestrated to minimise the impact upon its teams. The transition phase towards the universal TCFP will be crucial as most teams will have to carefully plan what they can do to amortise costs with the current market for second-hand Supercars into the Fujitsu Development Series. In essence that is slightly different to the approach that NASCAR has to adopt as there are slight but significant differences between Nextel Cup vehicles and the second-tier Busch Series cars.

More races on a compacted schedule with less expensive V8 Supercars are goals worth exploring. Just how it is going to be accomplished will be the interesting part of the exercise.

What is the ‘Car of Tomorrow’? NASCAR's 'Car of Tomorrow' is scheduled to enter the series in 2007, but the transition could present some problems. Safety implications are the single biggest determining factor in the impending introduction of NASCAR’s all-new ‘Car of Tomorrow’. Dale Earnhardt’s fatality hastened the phase in of initiatives such as the compulsory HANS Device and innovative cushioning ‘soft wall’ but, crucially, it prompted a more safety-conscious technical approach. As a consequence NASCAR appointed Gary Nelson (vice president of research and development) to oversee the design of the latest evolution car that was formulated at its impressive 50,000 square foot workshop. The ‘Car of Tomorrow’ is essentially much taller (two inches) and wider (four inches) than its predecessor in the ‘greenhouse’ glass area, providing enlarged openings for ingress and egress as well as catering for taller drivers. Additionally the driver is more centrally located with a shift towards the middle, while the configuration also provides for better crush zones on impact. The current dependency upon aerodynamics is expected to alter in order to alleviate the dreaded ‘aero push’ encountered in the wake of a preceding vehicle. This enlarged surface area is expected to also create better drafting opportunities to generate more overtaking prompted by a front splitter and more pronounced front bumper akin to the Craftsman Truck counterpart. Initial testing of the car commenced in November at Atlanta with tweaking of spoilers and body shapes expected to take some time before a final specification is arrived at. Another prime aspect of the car’s design is to attempt to reduce the need for multiple variants employed by teams between short tracks, super speedways and road course cars. For someone like Roush Racing (running five Nextel Cup teams, three Busch Series outfits and two Craftsman Truck cars) with a total inventory approaching 100 cars, a seamless transition is pivotal. A major roll-out scheduled for the start of the 2007 season is a massive exercise for teams. Implications even range to whether or not the bigger cars will cause new transporters to be built to accommodate them!