Lights and Atlantics @ Mid-Ohio

[Hoop-98]

Well you seem to be assuming the car can just do that automatically without any work. I doubt that is the case. That is not like an oval where you just add downforce in order to keep it flat because you have no clue about a good (or safe) setup.

I make no assumptions, I do research. I don't just decide if it's related to the Indycar series it must be worse. The fact is that Swift was told to increase the downforce due to the fact the car was much heavier than anticipated. If you had read their paper on the construction of the 014 and 016 you would see this reference.

I have a lot of admiration for Swift and think they build a great trainer. I think the Light is a better trainer due to my knowledge of it's various performance profiles. That is my opinion based on a review of wind tunnel data of both cars and the setup manuals on both cars. I kind of doubt you have taken the trouble to review these documents, if I am wrong here, please let me know.

Also, could you please let me know exactly which settings are artificially restricted on the Indycar vs the DP01, and why such things as spec shocks on the DP01 are somehow less restrictive than the open shocks on the Indycar.

I know of one such setting which is not mandated on road course, please keep the differences to road course settings as there are no DP01 Oval rules. IE don't compare Texas minimum wing angles if they do not apply to road courses.

Your turn!

rh

[CCWS77]

You say you are working on facts not assumptions, but none of the facts you posted related to what I asked there. So is it a fact that the Atlantic car can automatically make it through the esses flat without some effort and skill and the lights car can never achieve that and is thus "difficult" and by your reasoning takes more skill? Or are you assuming that? That is integral to the point because if the car can just do it with any dumb driver or team then I would grant that yes that is competitively "easy". I seriously doubt that is the case.

Additionally, even if you were right, that is only one example of one curve. We know by the fact the Atlantic is less powerful yet faster that there has to be a majority range of corners/tracks in which getting the setup right must be more important then for lights. Its is impossible to not be the case by the law of diminishing returns since the lights car has more power but is slower, whatever the setup is defacto is buying you less speed. (unless the chassis is just somehow intrinsically faster despite setup? but really any facts to support that?)


I guess maybe im thrown by your entire line of reasoning that making the car more difficult to drive is the proper test of skill here. This is a 180 from the normal arguments in racing that setup and engineering is what is so important. You are doing a total reversal from the arguments between Champ Car and the IRL. Back then when Champ Car was spec a pure test of driver skill was stupid. Now the the driver and team needing to get the setup right is stupid because you want a test of driver skill pedal control? Who are the ones spinning based on what the series affiliation is? seems like you


I don't know what the actual settings are, if that is what you are asking. I'm saying providing a piece of equipment and saying you can use it however you want is less restrictive then having "open" rules and development on parts but then regulating it must be within a certain range. The second is more restricted and artificial no matter what the numbers are.

[Hoop-98]

You say you are working on facts not assumptions, but none of the facts you posted related to what I asked there. So is it a fact that the Atlantic car can automatically make it through the esses flat without some effort and skill and the lights car can never achieve that and is thus "difficult" and by your reasoning takes more skill? Or are you assuming that? That is integral to the point because if the car can just do it with any dumb driver or team then I would grant that yes that is competitively "easy". I seriously doubt that is the case.

Additionally, even if you were right, that is only one example of one curve. We know by the fact the Atlantic is less powerful yet faster that there has to be a majority range of corners/tracks in which getting the setup right must be more important then for lights. Its is impossible to not be the case by the law of diminishing returns since the lights car has more power but is slower, whatever the setup is defacto is buying you less speed. (unless the chassis is just somehow intrinsically faster despite setup? but really any facts to support that?)


I guess maybe im thrown by your entire line of reasoning that making the car more difficult to drive is the proper test of skill here. This is a 180 from the normal arguments in racing that setup and engineering is what is so important. You are doing a total reversal from the arguments between Champ Car and the IRL. Back then when Champ Car was spec a pure test of driver skill was stupid. Now the the driver and team needing to get the setup right is stupid because you want a test of driver skill pedal control? Who are the ones spinning based on what the series affiliation is? seems like you


I don't know what the actual settings are, if that is what you are asking. I'm saying providing a piece of equipment and saying you can use it however you want is less restrictive then having "open" rules and development on parts but then regulating it must be within a certain range. The second is more restricted and artificial no matter what the numbers are.

So what are these "settings" you speak of, and how familiar are you with the rules and setups of any of these cars? No series says you can use it however you want.



rh

[grungex]

I won't even pretend to understand the above argument, but you have a 450 hp car vs. a 300 hp car which probably don't weigh all that far apart, and yet the 300 hp car is faster -- it seems fairly obvious that one car might be superior. JMHO.

[beachbum]

I won't even pretend to understand the above argument, but you have a 450 hp car vs. a 300 hp car which probably don't weigh all that far apart, and yet the 300 hp car is faster -- it seems fairly obvious that one car might be superior. JMHO.

Things are never as simple as they seem. Hoop made a very significant point about the differences.

The cars run very similar times at many tracks (PBIR = 1:07s) due to the Swifts higher corner speeds made up by the higher acceleration of the Indy Light.

Some tracks favor horsepower and some favor handling and cornering speeds. Mid-Ohio is one that favors handling, which is why the ALMS P2 cars have often been as fast as the P1 cars with a lot less HP. Other tracks, for example Elkhart, favor horsepower. But even there, you have to account for aero drag. A car with more horsepower may accelerate faster, but that advantage may decrease as the speed goes up if it has more frontal area and drag. Even a slight increase in weight increases braking distance, so if the track has a lot of hard braking zones, the lighter car can go in deeper and improve lap times.

The only way to actually compare apples and oranges is to put them both on the track at the same time with equally skilled drivers. Then you can compare lap traces and see where one is faster or slower. Run them nose to tail, and the comparison becomes more pronounced as one will pull away in places and hold up the other in other corners. It is still apples and oranges.

[Hoop-98]

These cars lap times went back and forth in the session. The Lights had a damp track for qualifying and about 20 degree higher air temp for the race than the Atlantics.

At 'horsepower" tracks the Lights have been quicker, at a downforce track they are close. Without them on the track, same time, same fuel load too close to call at Mid-Ohio.

The Atlantic can pull about 1 more G than the Light, (like 4 to 3) as it has much higher downforce per pound. The Light has a much better power to weight ratio so we get similar lap times, but the lights are "faster".

I stated my opinion and why, anyone is obviously free to feel different.

Of course citing times from a wet/damp session to one with ideal conditions is sort of disingenuous , again, that is my opinion.


rh

[CCWS77]

I won't even pretend to understand the above argument, but you have a 450 hp car vs. a 300 hp car which probably don't weigh all that far apart, and yet the 300 hp car is faster -- it seems fairly obvious that one car might be superior. JMHO.

The argument against this point is that because the lights car is essentially a bad car that makes it a better trainer and test of driver skill to deal with the difficulty. Thus the Lights series is better then Atlantic. I'm not buying that at all.

All Hoop-98's technical dissertations about WHY the cars perform this way are just a distraction from this basic disagreement. Moreover it is a totally hypocritical argument from anyone who ever criticized champ car as being restricted rules, spec, or lacking car development or engineering. Suddenly seeing what a driver can do with thier foot is important? This from advocates of the IRL in which they tend to keep it floored and instead calculate out fuel mileage settings with buttons on the dash?

[beachbum]

The argument against this point is that because the lights car is essentially a bad car that makes it a better trainer and test of driver skill to deal with the difficulty. Thus the Lights series is better then Atlantic. I'm not buying that at all.

All Hoop-98's technical dissertations about WHY the cars perform this way are just a distraction from this basic disagreement. Moreover it is a totally hypocritical argument from anyone who ever criticized champ car as being restricted rules, spec, or lacking car development or engineering. Suddenly seeing what a driver can do with thier foot is important? This from advocates of the IRL in which they tend to keep it floored and instead calculate out fuel mileage settings with buttons on the dash?

Actually, I find the argument that the Atlantic is a better training ground rather funny when many internet "experts" keep demanding less downforce and cars more difficult to drive - like the Lights cars. So I ask the obvious. Which is harder to drive, a slightly heavier car that requires a driver to lift in turns or a lighter one that has enough downforce they are horsepower limited and can be held flat in many turns?. IMHO, they both develop different and useful skill sets, and race craft can be developed in both. It is still apples and oranges.

[vintage]

The reason this is a stupid thread is that from track to track the comparison changes. The FIL cars were faster at Long Beach in 09 than the Atlantics were in 08. Therefore, following the logic of some on this thread, they must be superior, take more engineering to set up, blah blah blah. Why don't one of you contact Hinchcliffe, Hildebrand, or one of the other drivers that have driven both? I'm guessing they would tell you that both cars have strengths and weaknesses, and both are difficult to get the setup right - but for different reasons.

[CCWS77]

I think we know and even agree what the differences are in the cars.

If we are talking about what might generate a better show, well then ill concede you want as much power as you can get no matter what the chassis is. But this started because Hoop said that Lights car was a good step in between Atlantic and Indy, even as they are the same speed. If we are talking here about which is a better training car, then on a basic level what is more important thing for these guys to learn? Throttle control or figuring out complicated setups and aero? Excuse me if I consider the throttle control as a more basic thing and setup, aero, and taking perfect lines as the more advanced. Even if you consider them both vitally important, saying the lights are such a step above is clearly agenda driven by the affiliation, not any facts about the series. I object that he uses stats and graphs to hide this agenda when they are not related to that opinion at all.