Looking Forward -- 2009-2010 Chassis Package

[pits4me]

Where is the future of open wheel racing headed? One series stepped up to the plate and gave us an appetizer with gills.

1. A sleek body design
2. A Turbo with push2pass
3. Paddle shifters

Superleague delivers a sexy car with a V12. Now if I could just find the picture of a Lola concept proposed two years ago, it sent chills down my spine.

Open wheel will have to do something soon because modern tin tops are about to hammer the COT's. Rahal running the new BMW M3 and Lexus ISF may debut in Long Beach.

[ShiftingGears]

I really hope there is not that useless P2P gimmick. The aim of producing a new car is to have good racing without taking the driver challenge away from passing. That's all anyone wants - a great, safe car for racing (passing, wheel to wheel duels for the lead), and a car that still looks spectacular when driving by itself.

[geek49203]

Where is the future of open wheel racing headed? One series stepped up to the plate and gave us an appetizer with gills.

For the record, I'd love to remove all wings and side pods, returning us to the Jim Clarke Lotus 38 era. Sadly, the results in terms of safety would probably be the same -- if you've looked into a car of that era, you'd quickly decide that you'd rather run a modern crotch rocket motorcycle as it looks safer.

At Indy last year I discussed the next generation of cars with an IRL official (I think it started off with a discussion of the DP01). The first thing that I learned is that the new will confirm to new FIA standards. This means, for instance, that the opening will be wide enough to extract the driver out of the car while still attached to his/her seat. As I recall, this means that the opening will be about 4" wider. IF someone knows the new FIA specs for open wheel "formula" cars, this would be a good time to share them.

Second, the car has to be safe. This is probably an extension of my first point. No doubt they will be crash tested, both in the virtual sense and in the actual physical sense. Modern auto racing will not stand fatalities, and while the current car has (with the notable exception of Paul Dana) done a good job in the past 2 years, no doubt there will be higher expectations. It has to be "safe" in places like Indy, which in itself is a huge expectation.

Third, the car has to be cost-effective. This is a combination of purchase price, cost of operation, as well as surface space to sell to sponsors. This last point -- the sponsor space -- is half of the reason why wings will never go away (the other half, of course, is speed control).

You'll notice that I haven't said "pretty" yet. Yes, the DP01 was, is, an attractive car, and if I hit the lotto, I'm gonna buy one as a toy (screw those people who think that lotto winners buy Vipers!). However, you'll notice that it didn't save the series, and my pet theory is that it actually sealed the doom of CCWS (couldn't be run at Indy).

So, starting with my first point... Does anyone know the FIA standards that will be used for that new car?

[ShiftingGears]

For the record, I'd love to remove all wings and side pods, returning us to the Jim Clarke Lotus 38 era. Sadly, the results in terms of safety would probably be the same -- if you've looked into a car of that era, you'd quickly decide that you'd rather run a modern crotch rocket motorcycle as it looks safer.

Fortunately thats completely untrue. Lower mechanical grip means lower cornering speeds, which means lower impact speeds.
= SAFER.

You're drawing comparisons with a car that didn't have fuel cells and raced on tracks without crash barriers. Modern cars are a squillion times safer.
Sidepods aren't a negative thing for racing either.

[geek49203]

Fortunately thats completely untrue. Lower mechanical grip means lower cornering speeds, which means lower impact speeds.
= SAFER.

You're drawing comparisons with a car that didn't have fuel cells and raced on tracks without crash barriers. Modern cars are a squillion times safer.
Sidepods aren't a negative thing for racing either.

Uh, have you looked at a Lotus 38, the car to which I'm referring when I say "unsafe"? 4 tires, a motor, a fragile gas tank, and a steering wheel, all connected by tubes and covered in aluminum. No thank you, I'd rather not roast alive, trapped by bent tubes and aircraft aluminum. The life expectancy of a driver of one of those cars was somewhere around 5-6 years.

The wings and side pods on modern cars are used to control speed. Remember when both of the Penske cars broke their rear wings at Milwaukee in an effort to go faster? Can you can imagine the straightaway speeds at Indy (or worse yet, Michigan or Texas?) in the absence of the drag of the wings and side pods? Granted, the corning speeds would be much much lower... but if the brakes fail at the end of a straight (insert picture of mushroom cloud here)?

In addition, the side pods are used for crash protection. In an IRL car, they extend to cover the entire driver in the event of a side impact. They are are also high as possible -- my pics from Indy last year show most drivers' chins, if not noses, roughly level with the top outside edge of the side pod.

No, I'm afraid that the aero stuff is here to stay....

[!!WALDO!!]

Fortunately thats completely untrue. Lower mechanical grip means lower cornering speeds, which means lower impact speeds.
= SAFER.

I know I know nothing but someone that does know something by the name of A.J. Foyt said "It isn't how fast you hit the wall but how you hit the wall."

In 1992 Jovy Marcello's last lap was 191 MPH almost 20 mph slower than the slowest time.

In 1982 Gordon Smiley had a warm up under 183 when he crashed in turn 3.

So in both cases it was "how" not how "fast". Even Scott Brayton was a "how".

Don't argue with me, argue with A.J. he made the comment.

[!!WALDO!!]

Seems like the students are involved now. Later it will be the decision makers and it will take a bit longer for something that may work.

http://www2.indystar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3513427&postcount=1

[jimispeed]

Actually Push 2 Pass is extremely exciting!! Both drivers get on it, and race for the pass, or the apex, which ever comes first. And watching it live, and close up, coming right at you is awesome!!

[ShiftingGears]

Uh, have you looked at a Lotus 38, the car to which I'm referring when I say "unsafe"?

I wasn't arguing about the fact that Clark-era open wheelers were unsafe. Of course they were dangerous!
I'm saying that removing the wings would add spectacle, and the cars sliding around, like in the 1960's, without bringing back the dangers of yesteryear.


The wings and side pods on modern cars are used to control speed. Remember when both of the Penske cars broke their rear wings at Milwaukee in an effort to go faster? Can you can imagine the straightaway speeds at Indy (or worse yet, Michigan or Texas?) in the absence of the drag of the wings and side pods? Granted, the corning speeds would be much much lower... but if the brakes fail at the end of a straight (insert picture of mushroom cloud here)?

You're forgetting that when you reduce cornering speeds you carry less speed onto the following straight. In any case, along with harder tyres (also decreasing corner speeds, and removing marbles) it'd make the racing more spectacular. As well as making the drivers lift off the accelerator.
In any case, the sidepods do not take away any spectacle from motor racing.

[ShiftingGears]

I know I know nothing but someone that does know something by the name of A.J. Foyt said "It isn't how fast you hit the wall but how you hit the wall."

In 1992 Jovy Marcello's last lap was 191 MPH almost 20 mph slower than the slowest time.

In 1982 Gordon Smiley had a warm up under 183 when he crashed in turn 3.

So in both cases it was "how" not how "fast". Even Scott Brayton was a "how".

Don't argue with me, argue with A.J. he made the comment.

How is this at all related to what I said? When you do crash at that critical angle, an increase in speed is going to increase the chance of injury. Obviously.

[ShiftingGears]

Actually Push 2 Pass is extremely exciting!! Both drivers get on it, and race for the pass, or the apex, which ever comes first. And watching it live, and close up, coming right at you is awesome!!

Imagine how much more exciting it would be knowing that the drivers actually pass someone else due to their own talent, and not because they have 50 more HP than the car in front?

Think about it.

[garyshell]

For the record, I'd love to remove all wings and side pods, returning us to the Jim Clarke Lotus 38 era. Sadly, the results in terms of safety would probably be the same -- if you've looked into a car of that era, you'd quickly decide that you'd rather run a modern crotch rocket motorcycle as it looks safer.



Fortunately thats completely untrue. Lower mechanical grip means lower cornering speeds, which means lower impact speeds.= SAFER.

Although both were in the same paragraph I didn't read that as saying that removing the wings would make them unsafe. I read it as he, like you and I, would like to see cars that slid around a bit like the Lotus 38 BUT he didn't want to turn the clock back to all the OTHER things that made those cars unsafe.

Gary

[jimispeed]

Imagine how much more exciting it would be knowing that the drivers actually pass someone else due to their own talent, and not because they have 50 more HP than the car in front?

Think about it.


That's where different engine manufacturers, and chassis builders come in.

If it's a spec series, then push to pass is great!!

Have you witnessed it up close??

[ShiftingGears]

If it's a spec series, then push to pass is great!!


Did you even consider my suggestion of removing the wings before you talked about how fantastic anything and everything was about CCWS?

How about instead of adding a stupid bandaid solution to the cars, you work on what is actually causing the lack of passing in the first place? Then you don't have to lessen the significance of driver challenge of setting up and completing a passing manuever.

And no, I have not seen it up close. I also don't see the relevance of engine and chassis manufacturers in response to my post.

[BenRoethig]

That's where different engine manufacturers, and chassis builders come in.

If it's a spec series, then push to pass is great!!

Have you witnessed it up close??

It isn't going to be. It technically isn't now. It may say Honda on the side, but they're not the only ones building the engine. We don't need video game gimmicks moving forward. If they don't know how to pass by out breaking
someone, then they don't deserve a ride.

[fan-veteran]

Things are quite complicated. Two extremes are:
First - spec chassis with practically no possibility of adjusting anything relative to your rival and therefore everybody have very the same car. And for example this goes for many years, so in this case "a serial" very fast OW chassis is born :) .
Second extreme - an ubelievable amount of money being poured for development. It is not impossible if we consider how much money go on millitary projects.

[Rex Monaco]

...and not because they have 50 more HP than the car in front?

Think about it.

I thought about it and they don't have 50 more HP than the car in front. The car in front could just as easily 'push not to get passed', making them both equal in hp.

It still might be a gimmick and I'm not married to it. I'd rather see 2 or more chassis makers and 2 or more engine manufacturers.

[Rex Monaco]

Seems like the students are involved now.

And by the designs shown, it appears that some of them may land a job at Mattel designing Hot Wheels.

I'm much more intrigued by the 'green' technology that was mentioned. Maybe there is hope that someone gets it.

[nanders]

I'd prefer to see Indy Car development mean something. Something that embraces where new technologies in real cars are going. Meaning: a new form of propulsion.

A new form of propulsion would have a better chance of getting manufacture interest. It would also bring diverse designs back into IndyCar racing which would strongly differentiate it from the CAB's. Open the rules up and let form fit function with the look of the car.

Isn't this the real heritage of Indy anyway?

[BenRoethig]

I thought about it and they don't have 50 more HP than the car in front. The car in front could just as easily 'push not to get passed', making them both equal in hp.

It still might be a gimmick and I'm not married to it. I'd rather see 2 or more chassis makers and 2 or more engine manufacturers.

I agree. Plus the goal here is not to be some spec F1 feeder series. The goal is to rebuild the sport to where it was before the split. That's not going to happen if the first move is to basically give up and go the easiest things possible. This is not going to be easy, but we do no know the audience is still out there. They just tune in and show up one week a year a year. The trick is to get them to show up to the other 19 or so like they used to.

[BenRoethig]

For the future here is what we need three things
1. We need to bring top chassis manufacturers together and come up with a new chassis formula that is good looking, safe, and at home anywhere from a street race to Indy.

2. We need to need to bring top engine companies together (Ilmor, cosworth, Judd, etc) and come up with a new engine formula. It must be 3-3.5L, about 650 horsepower, and based on a scalable design that could be used in other racing applications.

3. We need manufacturers (preferably domestic) to put their names on those engines.

4. Rules need to be tight enough where no chassis or engine can have an unfair advantage while giving them some wiggle room.

[Hoop-98]

Let's see, low downforce, automatic driver extraction, close racing, Briggs and Stratton, Honda, Yamaha, non-spec hmmmmm :)

http://i26.tinypic.com/1zdx64k.jpg

rh

[geek49203]

Although both were in the same paragraph I didn't read that as saying that removing the wings would make them unsafe. I read it as he, like you and I, would like to see cars that slid around a bit like the Lotus 38 BUT he didn't want to turn the clock back to all the OTHER things that made those cars unsafe.

Gary

Actually, I do think that the wings and sidepods do make the cars safer, and removing them would provide for unsafe conditions. The provide a way to control speeds, a place for crush zones, protecting the driver. In addition, the straightaway speeds at Indy (for instance) would hit something like 300 mph (Paul Tracy once hit 256.9 at MIS with wings as I recall), and if the brakes failed....... We might be able to do better in the fuel tanks, helmets, seat belts and such, but the rest of the package would be a problem. Perhaps if there was a 1000cc motor limit on such cars?

Still, if someone asks me for my fav Indy car... the Lotus is certainly in the Top 5 (along with the '72 Donahue car, the Johnny Lightning Special, the Novi.... any maybe the turbine cars?).

[geek49203]

For the future here is what we need three things
1. We need to bring top chassis manufacturers together and come up with a new chassis formula that is good looking, safe, and at home anywhere from a street race to Indy.

2. We need to need to bring top engine companies together (Ilmor, cosworth, Judd, etc) and come up with a new engine formula. It must be 3-3.5L, about 650 horsepower, and based on a scalable design that could be used in other racing applications.

3. We need manufacturers (preferably domestic) to put their names on those engines.

4. Rules need to be tight enough where no chassis or engine can have an unfair advantage while giving them some wiggle room.

From a marketing and entertainment point of view, what would multiple manufacturers bring to the table? Did the odd Panoz last year at Indy add anything to the race? Do 4 motor manufacturers bring enough entertainment value to NASCAR that it justifies the massive R&D costs that are going into it?

The whole point is that each of the manufacturers are looking for the "unfair" advantage. Penske, for instance, read the USAC rule book and called up Mercedes, making one of the most boring races in history, but the Penskeites to this day resent me using the word "cheating" to talk about that motor.

From a marketing and entertainment point of view, the only time that such a formula makes sense is when those companies bring their marketing budgets, and whatever fan base them might have, along with them. There needs to be a "buzz" where everyone is talking about the technology, and the monetary value of that buzz must offset the money spent to get it, and worth the damage done to the teams that didn't have advantage. Remember, GM pulled out of Indy when Toyota got in and went a lot faster, and most of the teams that ran GM (the notable refugee is Sam Hornish) were soon out of business.

[fan-veteran]

In my opinion one of the greatest mistakes of CART which helped for its bancruptcy in 2004 was namely great expenditures bacause of the technical regulations. In fact TG mastered this in 1997, and that helped him to support IRL throughout all these years. But maybe i'm wrong.

Techincal rivalry is of course great, but it costs vast amount of money.

[nanders]

For the future here is what we need three things
1. We need to bring top chassis manufacturers together and come up with a new chassis formula that is good looking, safe, and at home anywhere from a street race to Indy.

What could this possibly be? The chassis should fit the propulsion. A better looking car forced into an obsolete formula is just a good looking, uninspiring, obsolete car. And wasn't the DP01 and the current IndyCar already that?


2. We need to need to bring top engine companies together (Ilmor, cosworth, Judd, etc) and come up with a new engine formula. It must be 3-3.5L, about 650 horsepower, and based on a scalable design that could be used in other racing applications.

The internal combustion engine is obsolete. Why would any manufacture want to get into another low tech formula? After all they already have an obsolete top form of racing to be in with NASCAB. Why would they need another?


3. We need manufacturers (preferably domestic) to put their names on those engines.

Why would manufactures want to be involved in a going backwards, obsolete formula as you mentioned in #2.


4. Rules need to be tight enough where no chassis or engine can have an unfair advantage while giving them some wiggle room.

The rules need to be loosened up to encourage innovation and where engineering counts. Similar to: http://www.hydrogenforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=347

I'm afraid you might get your wish with this, but if they do this it will be a total failure. New technologies that are moving in the direction that the auto manufactures want to build real cars around is the only answer that will get them back in, in force.

Your solution is "milk toast."

Love you anyway though Ben.

[nanders]

In my opinion one of the greatest mistakes of CART which helped for its bancruptcy in 2004 was namely great expenditures bacause of the technical regulations. In fact TG mastered this in 1997, and that helped him to support IRL throughout all these years. But maybe i'm wrong.

Techincal rivalry is of course great, but it costs vast amount of money.

The thing that really hurt the series was not all the money they threw at the series, it was when they stopped.

It happened in many series, GTP, CanAm, TransAm .... CART. Motorsport is cyclical in this regard but demonstration of new technologies has always brought good "buzz" to the series. It will be the technical rivalries where open wheel will find the thing that differentiates itself from F1 and NASCAB.

What do you want? A milk toast, even keel formula or something that can vault it back to the top of motorsport?

[BenRoethig]

What could this possibly be? The chassis should fit the propulsion. A better looking car forced into an obsolete formula is just a good looking, uninspiring, obsolete car. And wasn't the DP01 and the current IndyCar already that?

I would be fine with the DP01 if it were safe on ovals.



The internal combustion engine is obsolete. Why would any manufacture want to get into another low tech formula?

And you expect they use what, a jet turbine or mini nuclear reactor? The internal combustion engine is currently the only practical game in town. Hydrogen engines are still years away from practicality and using a hybrid system would be a great deal more dangerous. If there was something better out there do you think F1 and its nine figure budgets would be using it?

You have good ideas (attiude could use some work), but they leave out the development stage.

[jimispeed]

[quote="BenRoethig"]I would be fine with the DP01 if it were safe on ovals.


You know I agree with that!! I thought originally it was qualified to race on ovals, but just hadn't been tested yet. Am I correct???

[fan-veteran]

An electric racing OW car for such speeds is out of option i think. The ICE is the only possibility.
Carbon fiber chassis is a good, high tech if we consider car manufacturing (aeronautics is another story, but even there nothing more sophisticated is in use, carbon fiber i mean). Piston engines rotating at more than 10000 rpm are also not low tech i think, nor engines with specific power approaching 300 hp/liter. Definitely, maybe, there is some space for a gas turbine engine manufactured using the state of the art technologies found in millitary jet engines but - why?

[nanders]

Hydrogen engines are still years away from practicality and using a hybrid system would be a great deal more dangerous.

You have good ideas (attiude could use some work), but they leave out the development stage.

If what I see here http://www.hydrogenforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=347 and the things I see on the Discovery Channel are to be believed, it looks like the Hydrogen Electric vehicle is getting pretty close and may be more mature then some think. That guy that's running the HERF is a former CEO of General Motors.


If there was something better out there do you think F1 and its nine figure budgets would be using it?

I think F1 has lost it's way. It hard to get any boring then a contemporary F1 race. But are you inferring that if F1 hasn't already done it then it's not a good idea for IndyCar? I'm thinking it's time for IndyCar to beat all the other series to the draw.


but they leave out the development stage. That's why engineers like to compete. That's why Indy has a history of introducing new innovation. And IMO what they need to get back to.


(attiude could use some work)

Love you anyway.

[geek49203]

In my opinion one of the greatest mistakes of CART which helped for its bancruptcy in 2004 was namely great expenditures bacause of the technical regulations. In fact TG mastered this in 1997, and that helped him to support IRL throughout all these years. But maybe i'm wrong.

Techincal rivalry is of course great, but it costs vast amount of money.

THANK YOU!!

Technical rivalry costs lots of money, and that investment rarely seems to pay back at the ticket windows (or sponsor's checks). In fact, yes, that was one of TG's complaints in 1997, that the technology wars had pushed cart into a position where it cost too much to compete, and the speeds (and safety) were out of control. No doubt TG had already been told by sponsors that they couldn't support Indy 'cause the sponsor's PR department was concerned about being associated with a sport where people got killed on a regular basis.

Even F1 is looking for ways to cut costs these days. Even F1 is constantly keeping various new technologies out of their sport.

Diehard 1980's and 1990's CART fans, take notice... like it or not, the auto racing world that you knew in the glory years is gone. Modern auto racing isn't about technology, and only approximately about driver skill. Rather, modern auto racing is about entertainment. The paradigm is no longer the engineering draftsman's table, or the gritty faces of famous drivers -- Is is that of a radio station, where the product is produced as cheaply as possible while still drawing a crowd that sponsors will pay to advertise to. I don't like it any better than you do, but those are the cold hard facts.

So, our goal here isn't to produce a technological rivalry, but rather, to produce a good show at a price that is easily paid for by sponsors. I suppose that if it was profitable to run minivans at Indy, we'd be doing that in 2009.

[nanders]

THANK YOU!!

Technical rivalry costs lots of money, and that investment rarely seems to pay back at the ticket windows (or sponsor's checks). In fact, yes, that was one of TG's complaints in 1997, that the technology wars had pushed cart into a position where it cost too much to compete, and the speeds (and safety) were out of control. No doubt TG had already been told by sponsors that they couldn't support Indy 'cause the sponsor's PR department was concerned about being associated with a sport where people got killed on a regular basis.

Even F1 is looking for ways to cut costs these days. Even F1 is constantly keeping various new technologies out of their sport.

Diehard 1980's and 1990's CART fans, take notice... like it or not, the auto racing world that you knew in the glory years is gone. Modern auto racing isn't about technology, and only approximately about driver skill. Rather, modern auto racing is about entertainment. The paradigm is no longer the engineering draftsman's table, or the gritty faces of famous drivers -- Is is that of a radio station, where the product is produced as cheaply as possible while still drawing a crowd that sponsors will pay to advertise to. I don't like it any better than you do, but those are the cold hard facts.

So, our goal here isn't to produce a technological rivalry, but rather, to produce a good show at a price that is easily paid for by sponsors. I suppose that if it was profitable to run minivans at Indy, we'd be doing that in 2009.

That's one way of looking at it. Of course it's what you already have and it ain't working.

The show has already been good. Why is nobody watching? It's time for some forward thinking rather backwards NASCAB thinking.

NASCAB is getting and spending huge amounts of money now. Sponsors and manufactures are not afriad to throw money at motorsport. F1 and NASCAB are examples of that. The cold hard fact is if you stay thinking small that's what you're going to get ... small. Give the manufactures a reason to spend big money.

Whoever goes Hydrogen Electric first will win when it comes to manufacture money.

[ShiftingGears]

That's one way of looking at it. Of course it's what you already have and it ain't working.

The show has already been good. Why is nobody watching? It's time for some forward thinking rather backwards NASCAB thinking.

In my opinion, the reason for the lack of success of Champ Car is because the races were pretty much exactly like F1 races. i.e. when the cars got to fast, flowing circuits the racing was processional. Even at other circuits the racing wasn't seat of your pants.

The average fan wouldn't know the difference between the two because they both look and race the same (to an average fan) and both the series have the same level of passing and dicing for the lead (i.e. minimal).

The fact is that NASCAR does well because they realised that theres a point where technical innovations start taking away the spectacle of racing.

Look at grand prix racing. If you look at videos from 20 years ago you can see Senna and Prost passing each other for the lead of the race, multiple times in one race! When was the last time you saw that in a dry motor race? That's why wet races are so good. There's limited grip, and the best drivers excel, and can pass each other.



NASCAB is getting and spending huge amounts of money now. Sponsors and manufactures are not afriad to throw money at motorsport. F1 and NASCAB are examples of that. The cold hard fact is if you stay thinking small that's what you're going to get ... small. Give the manufactures a reason to spend big money.

i.e. Have a good show. Not a contrived show where its full of unnecessary gimmicks and caution flags - just a series that can deliver great, exciting races.


Whoever goes Hydrogen Electric first will win when it comes to manufacture money.

Good idea. The thing is about technical innovations in the engine department, is that it doesn't take away any spectacle like aero innovations would.

[!!WALDO!!]

In my opinion, the reason for the lack of success of Champ Car is because the races were pretty much exactly like F1 races. i.e. when the cars got to fast, flowing circuits the racing was processional. Even at other circuits the racing wasn't seat of your pants.
See it is about entertaining the masses. You are absolutely right about that but it has been a problem in Open Wheel racing for years. Remember the closest finish at Indy was 2.16 seconds prior to the Johncock/Mears finish of 1982 and that record was in 1937. Open Wheel racing inherently has had more one leader races than multiple leaders. Once the fuel tanks got smaller and fuel restricted then racing got more competitive and CART benefited from this from 1979 on. Yet, it was no guarantee of a good race.

The average fan wouldn't know the difference between the two because they both look and race the same (to an average fan) and both the series have the same level of passing and dicing for the lead (i.e. minimal).
Same with F1, CCWS and IPS, truth be known this sport has be a niche sport since the 1960’s with an equal amount of “place” fans to “race” fans. So the average fan of today does know but really cannot get excited about the product. The diehard fans are different, they love one form. Then there are those “super” fans that like it all but they are few and far between and are disliked because they have been there, done it and bought the tee shirt.


The fact is that NASCAR does well because they realised that theres a point where technical innovations start taking away the spectacle of racing.
Many years ago I heard Mike Helton during a MRN broadcast (1999) talk about innovations and why NASCAR will not go in that direction even though Detroit wants it. His reasons were the following:
1. No equalization formula.
2. Hard to regulate
3. Drives up costs that eliminates Teams from the Sport.
I believe in the above and those basics must be adhered to in fear of killing the sport.

Look at grand prix racing. If you look at videos from 20 years ago you can see Senna and Prost passing each other for the lead of the race, multiple times in one race! When was the last time you saw that in a dry motor race? That's why wet races are so good. There's limited grip, and the best drivers excel, and can pass each other.
Yes with no grip in the 1960’s you saw what you have today. The hot set up won the title. Ferrari in 1964, Lotus in 1965, Brabham in 1966 and 1967, Lotus in 1968 etc.


i.e. Have a good show. Not a contrived show where its full of unnecessary gimmicks and caution flags - just a series that can deliver great, exciting races.
Auto racing is entertainment if people get bored to death then they will not purchase tickets for future events. Caution Flags in NASCAR are 49 out 50 legit. I will take safety first of the desires of those who do not care except that their driver wins.


Good idea. The thing is about technical innovations in the engine department, is that it doesn't take away any spectacle like aero innovations would.
If you have a product and it makes you millions and is well received and you change it 180 degrees and it costs you more to deliver and is not well received at all and you are committed in going forward not back. What can happen to your business? That is why nobody can commit to theory without seeing if it works. This is truly a CATCH 22.

[call_me_andrew]

The internal combustion engine is obsolete. Why would any manufacture want to get into another low tech formula? After all they already have an obsolete top form of racing to be in with NASCAB. Why would they need another?

The rules need to be loosened up to encourage innovation and where engineering counts. Similar to: http://www.hydrogenforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=347


I'll conceed that the internal combustion engine is obsolete in the sence that compact discs are obsolete. Better technologies are available, but they're far from the end of their useful lives.

I believe the first gasoline engine made 3 horsepower, and was so large that with the piston at bottom dead center, you could stand in the combustion chamber. The first carburetor was a candle wick that had been soaking in gasoline. Clearly darwinsim has not been lost on the automotive industry.

I'll admit that hydrogen fuel could be a great thing someday, and that day won't be in the next two decades. Hydrogen will work when we've all got solar pannels on our roofs and fusion in every reactor. But hydrogen fuel cells are not a new technology. NASA has been using them for 40 years. It's not a question of making power with one, hydrogen comes down to production and infastructure.

Le Mans Prototypes are the best indication of the future of propulsion. I've also contemplated an equalization formula to work diesels against the current 3.5L V8. I think a 5.0L V8 with 4 turbos could keep up. Finding a shoehorn big enough to get that into the back of a Dallara is the next challenge.

[ShiftingGears]

See it is about entertaining the masses. You are absolutely right about that but it has been a problem in Open Wheel racing for years. Remember the closest finish at Indy was 2.16 seconds prior to the Johncock/Mears finish of 1982 and that record was in 1937. Open Wheel racing inherently has had more one leader races than multiple leaders. Once the fuel tanks got smaller and fuel restricted then racing got more competitive and CART benefited from this from 1979 on. Yet, it was no guarantee of a good race.

Having one leader for the whole race isn't really the issue though. The issue is when there isn't any opportunity to pass. See Assen last year. The racing was close, but that didn't (IMO) make it exciting, because there wasn't any passing opportunities.



Yes with no grip in the 1960’s you saw what you have today. The hot set up won the title. Ferrari in 1964, Lotus in 1965, Brabham in 1966 and 1967, Lotus in 1968 etc.

Yep - like most of the time. But again - there was a greater window for overtaking.


Auto racing is entertainment if people get bored to death then they will not purchase tickets for future events. Caution Flags in NASCAR are 49 out 50 legit. I will take safety first of the desires of those who do not care except that their driver wins.

Some are bogus, to spice up the racing though. That's my concern. I want a show, but not at the expense of introducing something like The Winston.

If you have a product and it makes you millions and is well received and you change it 180 degrees and it costs you more to deliver and is not well received at all and you are committed in going forward not back. What can happen to your business? That is why nobody can commit to theory without seeing if it works. This is truly a CATCH 22.

Maybe several test sessions to evaluate - or an exhibition race - would help.

[-Helix-]

Personally, and I think a lot of other fans would agree with me, I don't care what they run as long as they look decent, sound good, and are faster than NASCABs.

I think they can still have multiple manufacturers and have the excitment of a spec series. Just strictly enforce the regulations to where every chassis/engine has to be pretty much identical. The thought of winning the Indy 500 or the Indycar Championship should be reason enough for manufacturers to get involved.

[Lousada]

THANK YOU!!

Technical rivalry costs lots of money, and that investment rarely seems to pay back at the ticket windows (or sponsor's checks). In fact, yes, that was one of TG's complaints in 1997, that the technology wars had pushed cart into a position where it cost too much to compete, and the speeds (and safety) were out of control.
Yes that's true. But you don't have to go all the way with technical freedom. You could enforce strict limitations regarding speed and development. Maybe you could make a 'non-agressionpact' between manufacturers, so that they don't let costs spiral out of control.
There are many ways to keep costs in check, while still giving the appearance of technology. It's not about the size of steps you take, but the steps itself. You must show that you are trying with development. 5 years of small steps do more to keep interest then 1 giant leap.


Even F1 is looking for ways to cut costs these days. Even F1 is constantly keeping various new technologies out of their sport.
Which is bizarre.


Modern auto racing isn't about technology, and only approximately about driver skill.
So ALMS is not autoracing? Even F1 is making regulations to increase driver skill, I think it's making a revival.


Rather, modern auto racing is about entertainment. The paradigm is no longer the engineering draftsman's table, or the gritty faces of famous drivers -- Is is that of a radio station, where the product is produced as cheaply as possible while still drawing a crowd that sponsors will pay to advertise to. I don't like it any better than you do, but those are the cold hard facts.
This is what NASCAR is doing. If you take this view, you basicly say that Indycar is obsolete. There is no point in taking on NASCAR with the exact same product. You must find the weak points in your competitor and make yourself strong in those areas. (of course, not forgetting that what makes them strong in the first place)


So, our goal here isn't to produce a technological rivalry, but rather, to produce a good show at a price that is easily paid for by sponsors.
Not technological rivalry, but technological advancement for sure.


I suppose that if it was profitable to run minivans at Indy, we'd be doing that in 2009.

They already run landyachts profitable at Indy :dork: Again, then why bother with Indycar?

[nanders]

Many years ago I heard Mike Helton during a MRN broadcast (1999) talk about innovations and why NASCAR will not go in that direction even though Detroit wants it. His reasons were the following:
1. No equalization formula.
2. Hard to regulate
3. Drives up costs that eliminates Teams from the Sport.
I believe in the above and those basics must be adhered to in fear of killing the sport.

For me this is the reason to do what NASCAB is not doing. NASCAB teams are still figuring out how to spend boatloads of money bringing in 10th of a second developments from F1. NASCAB has boatloads of dough coming in and they are figuring out how to spend boatloads of dough. IndyCar should be figuring out how to get their share of the boatloads of dough. The manufactures are saying they want technical innovation, why not give them what they want? They're going to spent the money on a nascab valve spring, that by most of everyone accounts here, mean nothing. Why not give them a platform to really demonstrate their future technologies that will mean something?

[nigelred5]

I posted this over at crapwagon about the DP-01 and the Superleague Chassis built by Panoz but it applies here......

If the IRL purchased the intellectual rights to the DP01, wouldn't it make sense to simply adopt the chassis for 2010 with some updates to the car for IRL type use? Why pay for someone else to design yet another car? TG may have just bought his new 0-10 car design. The Superleague engine intake looks damn good. <and would easily accomodate any other atmospheric engine>.. Do the engineering for the oval package, announce the DP01 specs as the 2010 formula with what ever engine formula they choose and allow any other manufacturer to also design to that spec. Even though the Champcar teams had a year with it, There could be enough changes by 2010 that it would be a fresh start with the same basic package.

AS long as the value of the dollar is so weak against the euro, it would make sense for the teams to go with an american built chassis on the exchange rate alone. We're basically looking at a 40% premium just on the exchange right now..........



IMO, a smaller displacement turbo engine fueled by alternative fuels like biodiesel or boiethanol from non-food sources that would also include some additional technology like regenerative braking might be good. That said, it would be expensive and until battery technology improves greatly, hybrid isn't feasible. 2010 is still awfully short term for a major change in engine formula.

My bet is on a much smaller displacement, alternatively fueled, forced induction engine that has some real world, present tense application that fits into the existing fuel distribution networks.
Under 2.5litre, 4 or 6cyl, turbocharged, biofuel. It would raise eyebrows, but I would advocate a 2.0liter V6, twin-turbo bio-diesel formula. Torque, reliability, real world fuel and somewhere to dump all that fryer grease from the pork tenderloin sammiches at the Brickyard. :)

[nanders]

This is what NASCAR is doing. If you take this view, you basicly say that Indycar is obsolete. There is no point in taking on NASCAR with the exact same product. You must find the weak points in your competitor and make yourself strong in those areas.

Lousada get's it. "There is no point in taking on NASCAR with the exact same product." IndyCar isn't the same but they are trying to emulate several of their formulas for success. I purpose "If NASCAB is doing it, find a different way of doing it." IndyCar must differentiate itself from the CABs and F1.

F1 says their move into new technologies is the Energy Recovery System. NASCAB is going with it's 1950's carburetors stock block formula. Would going to bio-diesel turbos be good enough to make a clear differentiation for IndyCar? Would this be enough to make the manufactures interested enough to drop boatloads of dough on ICS teams?

Why change the car formula at all if it's just a lateral move? To make the car look prettier?

[nigelred5]

The Dallaras will need to be replaced soon if for no other reason than they are getting long in the tooth. I won't belabor you with my opinion on its' asthetics. However I believe Honda actually wants some competition. The only way I can foresee any potential competetor re-entering Indycar racing is if there is a clean sheet on the engine formula. They might as well make it something that proves durability, the ability to use an alternative fuel, tremendous fuel efficiency and real world applicability. Turbodiesels can't be beat on almost any of those fronts with current on-road technology. As I said, technologies like fuel cells, hydrogen ICE's, or even hyrids and electrics isn't realistic thinking for 2010.

Chassis costs need to be reasonable for any existing or new team. A new chassis with minimal development costs, produced in the states by a team that has had a previous relationship with the league as a chassis supplier is already available. One where teams aren't penalized by the weak dollar is needed. CCWS already paid for the development of the DP-01, and once the CCWS bankruptcy proceedings are done and the ink is dry on the real merger agreement, TG and the IRL owns it. The DP-01 was built with ovals in mind, they have just never produced or tested the parts. Take a look at the superleague car to see what it would/could look like with an airbox. Beautiful, even if it wouldn't really beneeded for a small turbo motor. If they are going to replace the current cars, as everyone has been told they will be doing, it would make perfect financial sense for the league and the teams. Not to mention there are approximately 30 of them already built.

[fan-veteran]

Bio-diesel? Well, if we change gasoline engines to diesel, this looks like a technological step forward .... :p . But i hardly believe that a diesel engine can go above 10000rpm to yield a good, racing sound :D .
Comeon - what's the point using all these bio-diesels, fuel cells, and so on recent developments for normal, non-racing road cars?
In F1 we have a diversity of manufacturers, so what? Yes, there is a diversity in the shapes, but not so great. A different colors of livery give more diversity :) .
A different types of engines? A gas-turbine vs normally aspirated vs turbos looks great. But how to guarantee a proper equalization regulations?

[nanders]

The Dallaras will need to be replaced soon if for no other reason than they are getting long in the tooth. I won't belabor you with my opinion on its' asthetics. However I believe Honda actually wants some competition. The only way I can foresee any potential competetor re-entering Indycar racing is if there is a clean sheet on the engine formula. They might as well make it something that proves durability, the ability to use an alternative fuel, tremendous fuel efficiency and real world applicability. Turbodiesels can't be beat on almost any of those fronts with current on-road technology. As I said, technologies like fuel cells, hydrogen ICE's, or even hyrids and electrics isn't realistic thinking for 2010.

Chassis costs need to be reasonable for any existing or new team. A new chassis with minimal development costs, produced in the states by a team that has had a previous relationship with the league as a chassis supplier is already available. One where teams aren't penalized by the weak dollar is needed. CCWS already paid for the development of the DP-01, and once the CCWS bankruptcy proceedings are done and the ink is dry on the real merger agreement, TG and the IRL owns it. The DP-01 was built with ovals in mind, they have just never produced or tested the parts. Take a look at the superleague car to see what it would/could look like with an airbox. Beautiful, even if it wouldn't really beneeded for a small turbo motor. If they are going to replace the current cars, as everyone has been told they will be doing, it would make perfect financial sense for the league and the teams. Not to mention there are approximately 30 of them already built.

It's a good argument you make nige. However, I can't help but think that any ICE formula would be a short time interim formula.

[gromit]

I posted this over at crapwagon about the DP-01 and the Superleague Chassis built by Panoz but it applies here......

If the IRL purchased the intellectual rights to the DP01, wouldn't it make sense to simply adopt the chassis for 2010 with some updates to the car for IRL type use? Why pay for someone else to design yet another car? TG may have just bought his new 0-10 car design. The Superleague engine intake looks damn good. <and would easily accomodate any other atmospheric engine>.. Do the engineering for the oval package, announce the DP01 specs as the 2010 formula with what ever engine formula they choose and allow any other manufacturer to also design to that spec. Even though the Champcar teams had a year with it, There could be enough changes by 2010 that it would be a fresh start with the same basic package.

AS long as the value of the dollar is so weak against the euro, it would make sense for the teams to go with an american built chassis on the exchange rate alone. We're basically looking at a 40% premium just on the exchange right now..........



IMO, a smaller displacement turbo engine fueled by alternative fuels like biodiesel or boiethanol from non-food sources that would also include some additional technology like regenerative braking might be good. That said, it would be expensive and until battery technology improves greatly, hybrid isn't feasible. 2010 is still awfully short term for a major change in engine formula.

My bet is on a much smaller displacement, alternatively fueled, forced induction engine that has some real world, present tense application that fits into the existing fuel distribution networks.
Under 2.5litre, 4 or 6cyl, turbocharged, biofuel. It would raise eyebrows, but I would advocate a 2.0liter V6, twin-turbo bio-diesel formula. Torque, reliability, real world fuel and somewhere to dump all that fryer grease from the pork tenderloin sammiches at the Brickyard. :)

I think some sort of alternative fuel makes sense. Multiple engine manufacturers is something Honda wants though. So, if that is something that really needs to happen you have to pick a technology that multiple manufacturers are willing to embrace. Or you need to find a technology that a manufacturer will be able to supply and use to it advantage from a marketing perspective.

I agree that the DP01 is an attractive car so an advancement on that design to meet the demands of oval racing would be nice. Certainly, right now the weak US dollar favors using a US supplier, but the situation could be entirely different in 2010. Locking in a USD deal with Panoz does create a natural hedge against future fluctuation.

If I were to guess, I think we will some sort Ilmor vs. Cosworth engine competition with badging by two manufacturers. The chassis will probably be a next generation spec design by one of the recent players -- Dallara, Panoz, or Lola. Cost will take precedence over innovation.

[!!WALDO!!]

The manufactures are saying they want technical innovation, why not give them what they want? They're going to spent the money on a nascab valve spring, that by most of everyone accounts here, mean nothing. Why not give them a platform to really demonstrate their future technologies that will mean something?

1. No equalization formula.
2. Hard to regulate
3. Drives up costs that eliminates Teams from the Sport.

Why, the Car of Tomorrow? Equalizing the cars, (Better Competition), Safer (Insurance reasons), Easier to regulate, (Look at the fines), Harder to drive, (Putting back into the drivers hands)

Isn't that what people want in Open Wheel?

[!!WALDO!!]

Having one leader for the whole race isn't really the issue though. The issue is when there isn't any opportunity to pass. See Assen last year. The racing was close, but that didn't (IMO) make it exciting, because there wasn't any passing opportunities.

One leader means no passing. I saw people leaving races at the 3 quarter mark because of a lack of racing in the 1960s. If you spend money you expect something. Me, I didn't care, there were plenty of surprises in racing like A.J. on the pole at Milwaukee in 1965 in a Dirt Car with Dan Gurney in a Lotus next to him. Trust me that day was a race. The day before that same Meskowski car passed Johnny Rutherford by lap 15 and checked out, not much of a race.



Yep - like most of the time. But again - there was a greater window for overtaking.

In this side of the world it is called "passing". Remember on the highway you "pass" a car, not over take it.


Some are bogus, to spice up the racing though. That's my concern. I want a show, but not at the expense of introducing something like The Winston.

You definition of a "show" is what? My definition of a show is what? Ms LaPointe's definition of a show is what? Ms Rice's definition of a "show" is what? Ms Demkowicz's definition of a "show" is what? Ms. Goodman's definition of a "show" is what?
6 people and no agreement on what a good "show" is. So you must play to the lowest common denominator rather than high brow opinions of the few.


Maybe several test sessions to evaluate - or an exhibition race - would help.

The Car of Tomorrow was being planned and designed since the end of 2002.
Once out and raced in 2007 it tweeked up well and instead of being exclusive in 2009, it was moved up to 2008.

Nothing as important as chassis/engine/safety/not hurting the sport/getting the manufacturers behind it/getting the suppliers behind it/getting the teams to support it/making the sponsors happy/not screwing up the show for TV/ and making the change seamless.

[nigelred5]

I think some sort of alternative fuel makes sense. Multiple engine manufacturers is something Honda wants though. So, if that is something that really needs to happen you have to pick a technology that multiple manufacturers are willing to embrace. Or you need to find a technology that a manufacturer will be able to supply and use to it advantage from a marketing perspective.

I agree that the DP01 is an attractive car so an advancement on that design to meet the demands of oval racing would be nice. Certainly, right now the weak US dollar favors using a US supplier, but the situation could be entirely different in 2010. Locking in a USD deal with Panoz does create a natural hedge against future fluctuation.

If I were to guess, I think we will some sort Ilmor vs. Cosworth engine competition with badging by two manufacturers. The chassis will probably be a next generation spec design by one of the recent players -- Dallara, Panoz, or Lola. Cost will take precedence over innovation.

Unfortunately, by 2010, the best I think we can hope for is an equalization of the dollar against the Euro.

Honda has a diesel accord coming to the US market later this yearor early 09. Every mass market European manufacturer sells diesels, lots of them. Even the european GM, Ford and Chrylsers are available with diesel Engines.The stalwart of the people hauler, the Chrysler minivan is available with a diesel. Even Porsche is seriously contemplating deisels for the Cayenne and possible even the 911. The only reason diesels aren't more popular in the US is Big oil especially lobbies heavily against them because they are far more far efficient than gasoline engines. Audi has already proven them in sportscars and Peugeot adds to that this season. Of course, I've commuted in a turbodiesel for over 5 years and know well it's superiority as a communting vehicle in all types of traffic. No shortage of power EVER, and never under 49mpg in 5 years. Do they scream, no, but I sure can make that turbo whistle.

[geek49203]

If the IRL purchased the intellectual rights to the DP01, wouldn't it make sense to simply adopt the chassis for 2010 with some updates to the car for IRL type use? Why pay for someone else to design yet another car? TG may have just bought his new 0-10 car design.

AS I heard the story, the IRL people did look at the DP01 at one point, and went with the Dallara. I don't know all of the reasons behind it.

Second, would the DP01 be cost-effective once modified to meet the new FIA rules (wider tubs, etc) as well as safe oval racing? At what point do the modifications basically make it a new car? Would the DP01 be too fast for Indy and Texas?

Would the DP01's looks survive the redesign? Hell, would a better looking car even matter at the ticket office?

Third, one reason why the DP01 was faster than the IRL cars was that the Cosworth had more horsepower. "Honda" (Ilmor) dialed down the HP in order to save money, lower the speeds, etc.

I'm sorry, but the new car has a list of priorities, and high top speed isn't even on the list.


IMO, a smaller displacement turbo engine fueled by alternative fuels like biodiesel or boiethanol from non-food sources that would also include some additional technology like regenerative braking might be good.

It was interesting watching CCWS people decry the IRL for running "moonshine". Now, the people on here are wanting ethanol? Ethanol lowers the horsepower -- the "Honda" motor's displacement was increased from 3.0L to 3.5L to compensate. Are you wanting high speeds and high HP, or "green" cars? And, at the ticket office, has the IRL's switch to ethanol paid off?



My bet is on a much smaller displacement, alternatively fueled, forced induction engine that has some real world, present tense application that fits into the existing fuel distribution networks.
Under 2.5litre, 4 or 6cyl, turbocharged, biofuel. It would raise eyebrows, but I would advocate a 2.0liter V6, twin-turbo bio-diesel formula. Torque, reliability, real world fuel and somewhere to dump all that fryer grease from the pork tenderloin sammiches at the Brickyard. :)

This is one that I like. I think that one proposal for F1's next spec is a 1.1L motor, which would probably result in lower speeds and very cool motor noises. It wouldn't be the first time that the Indy people (USAC, CART and IRL) lowered displacement to control speeds.

I don't care about turbo / non-turbo. Fans respond more to the motor's noise than to its horsepower -- witness the drooling here about F1's motor noise, and the first IRL marketing efforts about the sounds of the new N/A motors. So, if it sounds cool, and the cost is reduced, and the speeds can be controlled... it's all good.

[!!WALDO!!]

AS I heard the story, the IRL people did look at the DP01 at one point, and went with the Dallara. I don't know all of the reasons behind it.

Never happened. The IRL rules package runs from 2002-2009. This was because someone given a promotional brochure. Of course it caused a wildfire of false and hopeful information being spread all over the internet.

Truth is the DP01 was $300,000 and the IRL cars $325,000.

So the only story you heard was a brochure in the hands of Mikey Andretti.

Since Panoz, the DP01 builder is also a ICS supplier one must believe that many pieces of that car came off the molds of the Panoz "carpwagon".

[grungex]

You might believe that, but nobody else does.

[geek49203]

Never happened.

My source on that in the IRL is pretty damned high. Either I was lied to (possible) or it really did happen. I'd be surprised if the IRL people and the Panoz people didn't talk about it -- after all, the IRL was a logical buyer, and Panoz did have an IRL entry (however short-lived).

I never said that the DP01 was a bad car in any way. I agree that the car is very attractive, and fulfilled its purpose very well.

My criticism is that it was the wrong car for the CCWS, and that the "koolaid" was that it was somehow reason why CCWS should have fans. When I hear those two assertions -- along with the "we were faster so we were better" mantra -- I know that those who say them don't understand the business of modern auto racing.

The DP01, even if there weren't the bias against the CCWS in the new IRL, isn't gonna be the new 09 car. The reasons given by its proponents don't rate very high on the list of priorities for the IRL. In addition, by the time the DP01 is made ready for Indy, Texas, MIS, et al, we're into a major redesign, which puts it on par with a redesign of the Dallara, etc.

[!!WALDO!!]

My source on that in the IRL is pretty damned high. Either I was lied to (possible) or it really did happen. I'd be surprised if the IRL people and the Panoz people didn't talk about it -- after all, the IRL was a logical buyer, and Panoz did have an IRL entry (however short-lived).

As is mine. Pure fantasy. Now with the IRL owning these cars then why not incorporate them into the series with Hondas or start another feeder series?

See a RULES PACKAGE is for a set period of time. You cannot just change them on a whim and cost the Teams millions. In the CCWS the Lola were starting to run out. The last time new ones were built was 2003 and 11 of them. I did a count over the years of that formula and only about 15 unscared Lolas existed and about 10 to 12 healthy rollers. There are at least 45 healthy Dallaras and a third more Panoz.


I never said that the DP01 was a bad car in any way. I agree that the car is very attractive, and fulfilled its purpose very well.

My criticism is that it was the wrong car for the CCWS, and that the "koolaid" was that it was somehow reason why CCWS should have fans. When I hear those two assertions -- along with the "we were faster so we were better" mantra -- I know that those who say them don't understand the business of modern auto racing.

The DP01, even if there weren't the bias against the CCWS in the new IRL, isn't gonna be the new 09 car. The reasons given by its proponents don't rate very high on the list of priorities for the IRL. In addition, by the time the DP01 is made ready for Indy, Texas, MIS, et al, we're into a major redesign, which puts it on par with a redesign of the Dallara, etc.

No, it was a good car but it is over, it does not fit into the 2002-2009 rules package.

Why is this so hard to understand? Wishful thinking is just that.

[ShiftingGears]

One leader means no passing. I saw people leaving races at the 3 quarter mark because of a lack of racing in the 1960s. If you spend money you expect something. Me, I didn't care, there were plenty of surprises in racing like A.J. on the pole at Milwaukee in 1965 in a Dirt Car with Dan Gurney in a Lotus next to him. Trust me that day was a race. The day before that same Meskowski car passed Johnny Rutherford by lap 15 and checked out, not much of a race.

It means no passing for the lead. Doesn't mean there's no opportunity for passing though, does it? That is what aerodynamics have limited.





In this side of the world it is called "passing". Remember on the highway you "pass" a car, not over take it.

We tend to do that on overtaking lanes.



You definition of a "show" is what? My definition of a show is what? Ms LaPointe's definition of a show is what? Ms Rice's definition of a "show" is what? Ms Demkowicz's definition of a "show" is what? Ms. Goodman's definition of a "show" is what?
6 people and no agreement on what a good "show" is. So you must play to the lowest common denominator rather than high brow opinions of the few.
I just want cars that are good for racing. That is what the fans want as well.

[nanders]

So you must play to the lowest common denominator rather than high brow opinions of the few.

The show is already good. If you take it to the lowest common denominator don't you risk alienating the real race fans?

The show is already good why is no one watching?

[bblocker68]

Unfortunately, by 2010, the best I think we can hope for is an equalization of the dollar against the Euro.

Honda has a diesel accord coming to the US market later this yearor early 09. Every mass market European manufacturer sells diesels, lots of them. Even the european GM, Ford and Chrylsers are available with diesel Engines.The stalwart of the people hauler, the Chrysler minivan is available with a diesel. Even Porsche is seriously contemplating deisels for the Cayenne and possible even the 911. The only reason diesels aren't more popular in the US is Big oil especially lobbies heavily against them because they are far more far efficient than gasoline engines. Audi has already proven them in sportscars and Peugeot adds to that this season. Of course, I've commuted in a turbodiesel for over 5 years and know well it's superiority as a communting vehicle in all types of traffic. No shortage of power EVER, and never under 49mpg in 5 years. Do they scream, no, but I sure can make that turbo whistle.

I'm with you on that Nigelred. If there was anyway to enocourage outside manunfacturers, to giving us a look, this could be it. Audi and Peugot just may give us a sniff.

I'm in full favor of adapting the DP-09 for 2010. We have a load of DP-01's that can be retro-fitted since they are sister designs. I'm sure an oval formula can be created by then.

Of course, I'd like to see Cosworth and Honda put all of those V-10's back to use, since they cant use them in F1 any longer.

[!!WALDO!!]

The show is already good. If you take it to the lowest common denominator don't you risk alienating the real race fans?

The show is already good why is no one watching?

Tell me how many "real racing fans" show up race to race?

[!!WALDO!!]

It means no passing for the lead. Doesn't mean there's no opportunity for passing though, does it? That is what aerodynamics have limited.

I have seen 1,000 races over the last 47 years, if there are 5 passes for postion then what? A great race? What percentage of the races I saw had 5 or less passes on the track?



We tend to do that on overtaking lanes.

We call then PASSING LANES, Charlie Daniels even did a song about it.


I just want cars that are good for racing. That is what the fans want as well.

Tell me what you consider a good race?

Mine is a One day show.
Practice at 11:00AM-1:00PM
Qualifying 1:00-2:15 Fastest 20 make the field straight up. 36 cars qualify.
14 cars qualified and got bumped.
2:30 the 14 cars race a 25 mile Consolation race with the top 4 making the race at the rear.
3:30 a 250 Mile race.

This way if the show becomes a bore those fans may have seen some real racing.
A. Racing against the clock
B. Racing against the clock that someone else established.
C. Racing to get into the big show
D. Racing to get as high as you can in the big show.

So give me what the fans want as well and what fans are you talking about?

[BenRoethig]

Tell me how many "real racing fans" show up race to race?

Better yet who is defined as "real" racing fans?

[nanders]

Tell me how many "real racing fans" show up race to race?

Why are you holding back on this one? You usually "throw up" your statistical knowledge base at an opportunity like this. So, you tell me.

[!!WALDO!!]

Why are you holding back on this one? You usually "throw up" your statistical knowledge base at an opportunity like this. So, you tell me.

Nope, you made the statement then you should know. Just a percentage will do.


The show is already good. If you take it to the lowest common denominator don't you risk alienating the real race fans?

The show is already good why is no one watching?

Try defending your statement rather than constantly fighting with people. You made the statement then tell us.

[nanders]

Nope, you made the statement then you should know. Just a percentage will do.

Aren't you trying to put words in my mouth? I was quoting no statistics. In fact I was asking a question. It is you that through statistics into this conversation. So if you want them you go get them. I'm sure you know them already because "Waldo knows all" anyway.


Try defending your statement rather than constantly fighting with people. You made the statement then tell us.

OK the statement that I made was "the show is already good." Ok, you got me on this one, it's a matter of opinion.

I'm pretty sure "If you take it to the lowest common denominator don't you risk alienating the real race fans?" is a question and not a statement. You don't have to answer it but answering a question with a question is really not answering a question, right?

Fighting? Isn't it you that does all the confronting here?

Isn't it you that has stirred up the hornets nest since you joined this forum? This thing ran pretty smooth before you.

But really Waldo it does seem like you know more then anyone I have ever seen in this forum and I have a hard time understanding why you even bother with us know nothings. The fellow who runs this forum has wikimotorsportpedia project going where you could probably be a great help at, being you like to really spill your guts.

But in the future WikiWaldo, please try not to engage me.

[nigelred5]

As is mine. Pure fantasy. Now with the IRL owning these cars then why not incorporate them into the series with Hondas ...?

See a RULES PACKAGE is for a set period of time. You cannot just change them on a whim and cost the Teams millions. In the CCWS the Lola were starting to run out. The last time new ones were built was 2003 and 11 of them. I did a count over the years of that formula and only about 15 unscared Lolas existed and about 10 to 12 healthy rollers. There are at least 45 healthy Dallaras and a third more Panoz.



No, it was a good car but it is over, it does not fit into the 2002-2009 rules package.

Why is this so hard to understand? Wishful thinking is just that.

Who was talking about the Lola? It was no less worn out than the current IRL Dallaras from what 2002? Of course many of the Dallara tubs have suffered serious damage, so how many have been either extensively re-manufactured or written off and replaced?

Who was talking about using the DP01 for 09? We're talking about it as a modern, viable, and most importantly, "bought and paid for" design for the forthcoming 2010 package due for the IRL. As I've read in the past year, the DP01 was designed to be capable of accepting multiple engines, as well as ovals with an appropriate oval package to modify the aerodynamics and suspension for use on an oval. Using an existing 1 year old design that has now been extensively track tested on what will be 50% of the courses for 09 and beyond makes sense.
They still have time to decide an engine formula to accompany a chassis and solicit manufacturers, though I assume that has already at least passed the initial stage for implementation by 2010. That could just as easily be the Dp01 powered by a 3.5l Honda fuelled with ethanol. That is still a NEW package for 2010 any way one looks at it and would likely be about as cheap as you could get a new car/engine package without retaining the existing Dallara/Honda.

Of course form today's news, it appears they want to go with an art design project rather than a well engineered and proven car.


On the subject of the V10's from F1, I doubt there are actually more than a handful or two of any particular specification of the various V10's sitting around. One has to remember most of the engine manufacturers were only supplying 2 to 4 cars for any event and the specs weren't totally frozen in the last year under the V10 formula in F1. Most customers don't get a current spec engine.
It's not like Cosworth or Honda or even Toyota in Indycars/CCWS where there was a large pool of common specification engines for the entire field. Even here, we all pretty much accept that there have been differences in a so called "spec" engine depending on who actually built the particular engine.

[!!WALDO!!]

So let us find the real race fans. There are those who maybe think differently what makes a real race fan so I will give real case example from 1996, 2007 and today.
A ½ Dirt track in Michigan that ran Sprints, Modified, Pro Stocks and Street Stocks, 1996. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Roy---Lives across the street and flies a Bill Elliott flag. He does not go to the races because Elliott isn’t racing there. Even gave him a free pass to see Schrader and Benson and he did not go.
Dick---Only shows up for Friday shows.
Tommy---Friday night here, Saturday half way across state to see the same show at another track.
A dirt Track in Wisconsin that runs Midgets every Sunday night. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Carl---He is in the stands every Sunday night.
Linda---Is a fan of a certain part time driver so only goes when he races.
Ed----Travels where ever the Midgets race, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
A pavement track that runs every Friday, LM, Grand-Am and Street Stocks and Saturdays Midgets. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Aaron---There every Midget race.
Carley---There both nights and any time they race there.
Mark---Goes Saturday night but leaves his seat if the LMs are not running.
On the Streets of Toronto. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Mike---There to check out woman and could care less about the races.
Jim---There for all three days but is more interested in the CASCAR.
Marcus---Was at Las Vegas, and Cleveland and is going to St Jovite.
At the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Joyce---Who has been there since 1960 but does not go to IRL races in her “hood”.
Michael---Only goes to the 500, 400 and F1 race.
Terry---Goes to Kansas, Kentucky, Nashville, Mid-Ohio, Belle-Isle and Chicagoland ICS races.
At the Chicagoland Motor Speedway, NASCAR race. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Carolyn---Only goes to races at Chicagoland
Russ---Goes to Busch races at St Louis, Milwaukee and full weekends at Michigan and three shows in Indianapolis at IMS and ORP, plus Kansas.
Jack---Only goes to the Cup race because he is a Jeff Gordon fan, he leaves if he drops out or can’t win.
Any given weekend. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Bob---Stays home to watch the races because he wants to help the ratings.
David--- Stays home to watch the races because he wants to help the ratings but is a Nielsen family.
Chuck--- Watches on any given weekend 3 to 6 races.
Any given day. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Rich---Spends hours on the internet posting stuff he learn from opinions of people that were not there, but it must be true.
Jerry---Scared of learning about the sport, knows it all already based on what he read on message boards.
Clarence---Been involved in many different aspects of the sport. Has knowledge on many subjects and stays away from those he does not know. Reads, writes and breaths the history of the sport but is disliked because he was there.
Just give me the names of the real race fans.



Nigel I was talking about building a Series around the DP01 that would the letter "B" in a A, B, C, D, E Ladder.

[weeflyonthewall]

What was thread all about? Oh yes -- our thoughts on a new chassis config. It might be a good idea to see what the FIA has in their crystal ball first. I thought the DP01 has most of it covered. Including the removable cockpit collar to get the driver out.
I like the Push 2 Pass and also the option tires. Tire wars between manufacturers doesn't have to be costly, just competitive. Same with engine mfgrs. until someone fiddled with the pop-off valve to gain a little edge.

[Rex Monaco]

I'll conceed that the internal combustion engine is obsolete in the sence that compact discs are obsolete. Better technologies are available, but they're far from the end of their useful lives.

And using this analogy, it's the entertainment companies that push the adoption of new technologies onto the public.

So racing as entertainment should show the public that hybrids are fast, reliable and they are availabe at your local store today.

The news and hype surrounding the first green series could make some Green Peace activists become race fans.

[nigelred5]

And using this analogy, it's the entertainment companies that push the adoption of new technologies onto the public.

So racing as entertainment should show the public that hybrids are fast, reliable and they are availabe at your local store today.

The news and hype surrounding the first green series could make some Green Peace activists become race fans.

But where are you going to put all of those batteries?? :)

[garyshell]

But where are you going to put all of those batteries?? :)


And just how "green" are those batteries in the first place??? Anyone see the "Boston Legal" segment a few weeks back where Jame's Spader's character took on a company that was complaining that the attorneys were not "green". The company was bragging about driving hybrid cars until Spader ripped them with a long series of facts about the building of those batteries and the circuitous route the raw materials, work in progress goods and finished goods made their way across the ocean multiple times and the NET energy consumed in their production did not equal their NET energy savings as used in the vehicle. In fact he indicated they consumed more fossil fuels than they saved. It was one of those Arsineo Hall, "things that make you go hmmmmm" moment. I was SHOCKED to say the least.

Gary

[SoCalPVguy]

So let us find the real race fans. There are those who maybe think differently what makes a real race fan so I will give real case example from 1996, 2007 and today.
A ½ Dirt track in Michigan that ran Sprints, Modified, Pro Stocks and Street Stocks, 1996. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Roy---Lives across the street and flies a Bill Elliott flag. He does not go to the races because Elliott isn’t racing there. Even gave him a free pass to see Schrader and Benson and he did not go.
Dick---Only shows up for Friday shows.
Tommy---Friday night here, Saturday half way across state to see the same show at another track.
A dirt Track in Wisconsin that runs Midgets every Sunday night. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Carl---He is in the stands every Sunday night.
Linda---Is a fan of a certain part time driver so only goes when he races.
Ed----Travels where ever the Midgets race, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
A pavement track that runs every Friday, LM, Grand-Am and Street Stocks and Saturdays Midgets. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Aaron---There every Midget race.
Carley---There both nights and any time they race there.
Mark---Goes Saturday night but leaves his seat if the LMs are not running.
On the Streets of Toronto. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Mike---There to check out woman and could care less about the races.
Jim---There for all three days but is more interested in the CASCAR.
Marcus---Was at Las Vegas, and Cleveland and is going to St Jovite.
At the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Joyce---Who has been there since 1960 but does not go to IRL races in her “hood”.
Michael---Only goes to the 500, 400 and F1 race.
Terry---Goes to Kansas, Kentucky, Nashville, Mid-Ohio, Belle-Isle and Chicagoland ICS races.
At the Chicagoland Motor Speedway, NASCAR race. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Carolyn---Only goes to races at Chicagoland
Russ---Goes to Busch races at St Louis, Milwaukee and full weekends at Michigan and three shows in Indianapolis at IMS and ORP, plus Kansas.
Jack---Only goes to the Cup race because he is a Jeff Gordon fan, he leaves if he drops out or can’t win.
Any given weekend. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Bob---Stays home to watch the races because he wants to help the ratings.
David--- Stays home to watch the races because he wants to help the ratings but is a Nielsen family.
Chuck--- Watches on any given weekend 3 to 6 races.
Any given day. Here are three fans. Which one is the “real race fan”?
Rich---Spends hours on the internet posting stuff he learn from opinions of people that were not there, but it must be true.
Jerry---Scared of learning about the sport, knows it all already based on what he read on message boards.
Clarence---Been involved in many different aspects of the sport. Has knowledge on many subjects and stays away from those he does not know. Reads, writes and breaths the history of the sport but is disliked because he was there.
Just give me the names of the real race fans.



Nigel I was talking about building a Series around the DP01 that would the letter "B" in a A, B, C, D, E Ladder.

Follow the link for my opinion of your performance...
http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/nerd.wav

You're working too hard, dude...
Back on topic:

Any formula that has an equivalency so that varying engine types and manufacturers plus multiple chassis suppliers will be welcomed.

[!!WALDO!!]

You're working too hard, dude...

Problem is these are actually from races I attended in 2007, yet no definition of "real race fans" that could offended by "rules changes". So it is on topic as we need to define those who are going to be reached.

There is a world beyond the Internet, they are called races and races have fans and fans talk to other fans. Not invisiable people talking to other invisiable people. If you disagree with them "you" then can insult them and chase them away in favor of those "you" agree with.
Fans at the track are "brothers and sisters" under the skin and do not dislike each other. Only the internet causes that.

[Rex Monaco]

Problem is these are actually from races I attended in 2007...

The problem isn't that. The problem is that an anonymous person on the internet thinks that it's so important that other people to accept them and their opinion, that they present their race resume with no reason other than to be an obnoxious braggard.

I've been to LBGP as a guest of a team and also as a guest of the promoter, I have been to Pikes Peak as a guest of a team on several occasions and I visited their shop in Japan, I have attended F1 races in Long Beach, Japan and Italy, I've attended the 24 hours of Daytona (IMSA before the split), 12 Hours of Sebring (IMSA), Indy (CART before the split), Sonoma (IMSA), Bristol (NASCAR), Daytona (NASCAR), Charlotte (NASCAR), Talledega (NASCAR), I was an SCCA flagman at Laguna Seca, I attended a drag race at the now defunct Lions Drag strip, I own seats at California Speedway and if I can get back to Italy this year, a good friend who is a former employee of Pininfarina can get me a tour of the Ferrari plant.

And what does this prove? Absolutley nothing.

But if you require my complete resume, including participation in a Malibu vintage car road rally that included the Steve McQueen XKSS, I'd be happy to post it each time I disagree with you.

[!!WALDO!!]

The problem isn't that. The problem is that an anonymous person on the internet thinks that it's so important that other people to accept them and their opinion, that they present their race resume with no reason other than to be an obnoxious braggard.

Not bragging, just pointing out. Of course one statement does not put everything in to context does it.


And what does this prove? Absolutley nothing.

So based on taking out of context it proves nothing. Actually have I ever question your knowledge, experience or expertise? Nope, but some how you get offended by those who could challenge you. I don't come here for a fight but there are those who want to fight with me.


But if you require my complete resume, including participation in a Malibu vintage car road rally that included the Steve McQueen XKSS, I'd be happy to post it each time I disagree with you.

People question my knowledge and how I got it. I DO NOT QUESTION WHERE THEY GOT THEIRS. One must assume that people do go to races.

Only a few are worried about this, frankly it appears to be your problem.

Maybe I will just leave, is that what you would like?

[!!WALDO!!]

I wonder how much the "CAR OF TODAY" in NASCAR is going to have a bearing on the 2010 Chassis Rules?

That just dawned on me as original thought is going out the window.

[Rex Monaco]

I wonder how much the "CAR OF TODAY" in NASCAR is going to have a bearing on the 2010 Chassis Rules?

That just dawned on me as original thought is going out the window.

Well if they adopt your over the counter V8's, then they might as well dumb everything else down too.

[Rex Monaco]

But where are you going to put all of those batteries?? :)

In the wheel hubs. ;)

[!!WALDO!!]

Well if they adopt your over the counter V8's, then they might as well dumb everything else down too.


See I was "told" that everyone has a different POV so I must dumb it down.

Although the CoT is a gem. It took a long time to get down and that Jeff Gordon hit shows you the car is doing its job. I know you would like to see more money spent as everyone even F-1 is looking to cut costs.

So will an over the counter engine bring more people in or less? In history when tried it worked better than high tech.

[nigelred5]

Hasn't the series dumbed it down enough in the past.? I'm all good with making the racing more affordable to teams, especially in today's economy, but lets hope they work on affordablity through economies of scale durable equipment and good decisions, rather than simply plugging a stock block engine into yet another ugly car. A well designed purpose built high mileage race engine will be more durable and cost effective in the long run than an overstressed, highly modified stock block engine.

[!!WALDO!!]

Hasn't the series dumbed it down enough in the past.? I'm all good with making the racing more affordable to teams, especially in today's economy, but lets hope they work on affordablity through economies of scale durable equipment and good decisions, rather than simply plugging a stock block engine into yet another ugly car. A well designed purpose built high mileage race engine will be more durable and cost effective in the long run than an overstressed, highly modified stock block engine.


I am tired of UGLY CAR as an excuse. I the last beauty I saw was a 1960 Watson Roadster IN MY OPINION.

Look I threw out an idea, you constantly beat it but every idea you have supported will cost more money, cause less teams to answer the bell, and depends on invisible money.
You may like that but look what invisible money has gotten those CCWS unable to answer this bell.

I know I do not know anything but as costs are lowered car count goes up. It has happen through out history.

[weeflyonthewall]

I am tired of UGLY CAR as an excuse. I the last beauty I saw was a 1960 Watson Roadster IN MY OPINION.

Look I threw out an idea, you constantly beat it but every idea you have supported will cost more money, cause less teams to answer the bell, and depends on invisible money.
You may like that but look what invisible money has gotten those CCWS unable to answer this bell.

I know I do not know anything but as costs are lowered car count goes up. It has happen through out history.

Are you related to Denith? You seem to battle every poster on in this forum regardless of how illogical or irrelevant your responses are.

[!!WALDO!!]

Are you related to Denith? You seem to battle every poster on in this forum regardless of how illogical or irrelevant your responses are.

Yet you respond. So is your post logical or relevant? Who do you think he was responding to, you?


Hasn't the series dumbed it down enough in the past.? I'm all good with making the racing more affordable to teams, especially in today's economy, but lets hope they work on affordablity through economies of scale durable equipment and good decisions, rather than simply plugging a stock block engine into yet another ugly car. A well designed purpose built high mileage race engine will be more durable and cost effective in the long run than an overstressed, highly modified stock block engine.

[pitwall3]

Did you even consider my suggestion of removing the wings before you talked about how fantastic anything and everything was about CCWS?

How about instead of adding a stupid bandaid solution to the cars, you work on what is actually causing the lack of passing in the first place? Then you don't have to lessen the significance of driver challenge of setting up and completing a passing manuever.

And no, I have not seen it up close. I also don't see the relevance of engine and chassis manufacturers in response to my post.

Now aren't we the testy one. Truly a legend in your own mind.

[Miatanut]

Actually, I do think that the wings and sidepods do make the cars safer, and removing them would provide for unsafe conditions. The provide a way to control speeds, a place for crush zones, protecting the driver. In addition, the straightaway speeds at Indy (for instance) would hit something like 300 mph (Paul Tracy once hit 256.9 at MIS with wings as I recall), and if the brakes failed....... We might be able to do better in the fuel tanks, helmets, seat belts and such, but the rest of the package would be a problem. Perhaps if there was a 1000cc motor limit on such cars?

Still, if someone asks me for my fav Indy car... the Lotus is certainly in the Top 5 (along with the '72 Donahue car, the Johnny Lightning Special, the Novi.... any maybe the turbine cars?).

Cornering speeds are the problem. That's why F1 went to stepped bottoms and has made a number of wing reductions over the years. If you took away the wings and limited under body downforce to some degree, rather than the 175+/- of Indy at 1970, with current technology it would probably be more like a 195 lap with the car probably something around 230 just before the braking zone (yes, braking zone) and more like 160 at mid-corner. Hoop could probably figure out excactly what things would be ;) . In any case, it would make for much more interesting racing. It's the whole 'conservation of momentum' thing (NASCAR restrictor plate races being the star example) that currently makes superspeedways such dangerous places.

My vote: No rear wings. Front wings will automatically shrink as needed. Stepped bottoms with a plank. No "aero appendages" above the tops of the tires. While I prefer the look of the pre-sidepods cars, sidepods definitely help in "T-bone" deals, so I would keep them. Harder tires which will last a full race distance. Tires can't be changed when refueling the car. If teams want to adjust tire pressures, they have to do it before or after refueling.

More on a fantasy level:
No minimum weight, only safety tests. No engine spec., only an air restictor (ACO/ALMS style). You can run a big V8 or a 1L turbo. No exotic materials. Energy recovery systems allowed. Only one construction change allowed from the configuration the car was presented in before first race of the season, to occur at mid-season. Spec. fuel, but has to flow into the car at the same rate as a typical service station pump through a sanctioning body controlled metering unit. If you have a formula that 'lets you spend less time at the pump', you might have an advantage.

[Miatanut]

And if you think air pollution from car emissions is bad, wait until you see what you get from a few million dead auto type batteries. It almost makes radioactive waste look good.

If I don't return my dead lead-acid battery (OK lead-gel in a Miata), I pay a core charge because the dead one was going to be recycled. No reason for the batteries in a hybrid to be any different.

Personally, I think the Kinetic Energy Recovery System F1 is going to makes more sense for most cars. Most of the time it's only a couple minutes between when you store the energy and when you want it back. Keeping it as kinetic energy is a lot more efficient than converting it from kinetic energy to electric energy to chemical energy to electric energy to kinetic energy.

[fan-veteran]

We should remember that so called Handford device made a little revolution in 'super-oval' racing. And in fact it was like a parasitic rear wing creating huge drag and turbulence. So it is worth to consider it's returning. I don't like it definitely (as an element creating drag, it looks dully), but also admit it's amazing effectiveness. But it depends if the racing with it will be safe enough.

[!!WALDO!!]

My vote: No rear wings. Front wings will automatically shrink as needed. Stepped bottoms with a plank. No "aero appendages" above the tops of the tires. While I prefer the look of the pre-sidepods cars, sidepods definitely help in "T-bone" deals, so I would keep them. Harder tires which will last a full race distance. Tires can't be changed when refueling the car. If teams want to adjust tire pressures, they have to do it before or after refueling.

How about no aero-appendages behind the rear axle. Must be between, Roll bar and rear axle. Yes, the fronts shrink. No bigger than half the width of the front tires.
I would like 4 wheel drive back. USAC dropped it because of the turbine and it "had no direct automotive application."

That was the rules of 1969.

[BrentJackson]

Boy, we got some radical ideas here.

Removing wings = bad idea. On a bunch of levels. You end up with either no downforce (which dramatically drops speeds and hurts stability) or everything dependent on the underbody, which as F1 found out in the 80s when it lets go its lets go big time. Combine that with current power levels and you end up with 160 miles an hour in the corners and 240-ish on the straights, and trying to turn in at that speed on the brakes will make for a seriously unstable car, particularly if its weight is in the tail as most RE open wheel cars are.

I say reduce the size by all means, but keep them to some extent. I'd say put more focus on the underbody, but limit that size, too.

One interesting idea might be covering the tops of the wheels. That would make wheel-lock incidents like Franchitti's flight last year difficult if not impossible, and dramatically drop the drag on the car.

And really for a new design, you want it to LOOK like a wicked new design, something out of Blade Runner almost. Why? Because that looks cool. If I could draw worth a crap I'd do a design for ya. The idea is this - similar front wings to what we have now, but with a piece of CF that splits from the nose of the car to cover just the front wheels. Similar to a modern car behind that (perhaps small barge boards in front of the sidepods, but that's a judgement call) and a roll bar just high enough to cover a driver's head. Intakes on the side of the roll bar, feeding straight into the airbox beneath the bodywork.

Same pieces of CF covering the rear wheels, with a one-piece wing that it attached to the pieces over the rear wheels, one element stretching right across the width of the car. One wing element in front, one in back. Smaller tunnels to keep SOME downforce. make the wing design toss the air over it upwards well into the sky, created a section of low drag behind the car. (Result: big draft effect.) Run somewhat harder tires to keep speeds down.

Then up the power. Big time.

Best fantasy idea - spec a fuel pump that flows only so much gas (or diesel, or ethanol), then tell the teams they can run what they wish - but it has to run on that amount of fuel. Tampering with the pump gets you tossed for a weekend. Tamper twice and you're done for the year. Make the car NOT use the motor as a chassis member, and make the engine bay big enough to toss in lots of different types of motors. That makes the engines as expensive as you want them to be - and if you push, you get power but could end up blowing the engine as a result.

[nigelred5]

If I don't return my dead lead-acid battery (OK lead-gel in a Miata), I pay a core charge because the dead one was going to be recycled. No reason for the batteries in a hybrid to be any different.



Here, we pay a charge for proper battery disposal, not a core for recycling. :rolleyes:

[nigelred5]

Brent, as soon as you go covering the wheels as I'm understanding what you describe, well, aren't we essentially changing the formula to more of a protptype sportscar formula more like the late CANAM cars. Not necessarily a bad thing mind you, but it's no longer truly an open wheel car.

[V12]

I think too many people are concerning themselves with the car having a certain "look" or whatever. The last thing I want to see is a spec car with a certain look and feel defined first and everything else coming later. In otherwords, A1GP.

Form should follow function. Get a sensible set of technical regs drafted and let chassis builders do whatever the hell they want within that framework. That's what's worked for over a century.

[nanders]

I think too many people are concerning themselves with the car having a certain "look" or whatever. The last thing I want to see is a spec car with a certain look and feel defined first and everything else coming later. In otherwords, A1GP.

Form should follow function. Get a sensible set of technical regs drafted and let chassis builders do whatever the hell they want within that framework. That's what's worked for over a century.

I'm with this train of thought.

[nigelred5]

Certainly that is what i'd prefer to see as well.

[Miatanut]

Removing wings = bad idea. On a bunch of levels. You end up with either no downforce (which dramatically drops speeds and hurts stability) or everything dependent on the underbody, which as F1 found out in the 80s when it lets go its lets go big time. Combine that with current power levels and you end up with 160 miles an hour in the corners and 240-ish on the straights, and trying to turn in at that speed on the brakes will make for a seriously unstable car, particularly if its weight is in the tail as most RE open wheel cars are.

I say reduce the size by all means, but keep them to some extent. I'd say put more focus on the underbody, but limit that size, too.

In the '90's, they had the superspeedway wings that didn't actually do much. They were just there to trim the car. All the downforce they wanted came from the tunnels. According to calculations Hoop has done, the DP01 had enough downforce and drag just from the tunnels to make it flat all the way around, so to make a car the drivers really have to drive, you have to both eliminate the rear wing, and make a significant reduction in under body downforce. Hence proposing a stepped bottom with plank, as F1 is doing.

The problem with '80's F1 ground effect was the skirts sticking up at inconvenient times, which is why movable skirts were banned. Without a stepped bottom with plank, and with virtually all the downforce coming from the under tray, you would have a car which was really pitch-sensitive. The stepped bottom would require the tunnels to be far enough up that a one centimeter change in ride height isn't going to cause the car to become an uncontrollable beast. You would still have a car producing over 500 pounds of downforce at speed. Contrast that with such great cars from my childhood as the Porsche 917, which even in its developed form actually had lift on the front axle while booking down the Mulsanne!

A quarter ton of downforce would still be plenty for a stable car.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would love to see the modern incarnation of a Indy Roadster run on ovals but since this series will be on a mix of circuits, alas it wont happen. I do think though that if the IRL had stuck to their original forumla of ovals only that roadster concept would have separated them enough from Champ Car/CART to ensure survival maybe for both. It didn't happen....so where are we?

I would like a flat bottomed/step concept as Miata has pointed out. Play with wing sizes to moderate the downforce. The key here is to make a formula that creates a car that must be DRIVEN on every race track. Not riding around with the foot on the mat. The driver must have to fight the car, lift for corners...brake on some ovals if not all of them and must not be so sensitive to aero that it cant run close together. The DP-01 apparently had elements of this in its design and I did notice they ran a bit closer together in CCWS races than the old Lola's did, but it wasn't completely successful in running close together either. It was however a step in the right direction.

As for Engines, I would love to see this opened up for competition and let the chips fall where they may. That said, some form of Spec formula is inevitable. Why? take note...only f1 and the ALMS have rules with some open intrpretation of different ideas. Also take note that at times, both series can be real parades.

American race fans are flocking to NASCAR because of the closeness of competition and they will not accept a parade week after week. Whatever formula evolves in 2010, the people running this show have to find a way to make the racing competitive....I just hope they don't kill off all ingenuity and variety.....

[garyshell]

I would love to see the modern incarnation of a Indy Roadster run on ovals but since this series will be on a mix of circuits, alas it wont happen. I do think though that if the IRL had stuck to their original forumla of ovals only that roadster concept would have separated them enough from Champ Car/CART to ensure survival maybe for both. It didn't happen....so where are we?

I would like a flat bottomed/step concept as Miata has pointed out. Play with wing sizes to moderate the downforce. The key here is to make a formula that creates a car that must be DRIVEN on every race track. Not riding around with the foot on the mat. The driver must have to fight the car, lift for corners...brake on some ovals if not all of them and must not be so sensitive to aero that it cant run close together. The DP-01 apparently had elements of this in its design and I did notice they ran a bit closer together in CCWS races than the old Lola's did, but it wasn't completely successful in running close together either. It was however a step in the right direction.

As for Engines, I would love to see this opened up for competition and let the chips fall where they may. That said, some form of Spec formula is inevitable. Why? take note...only f1 and the ALMS have rules with some open intrpretation of different ideas. Also take note that at times, both series can be real parades.

American race fans are flocking to NASCAR because of the closeness of competition and they will not accept a parade week after week. Whatever formula evolves in 2010, the people running this show have to find a way to make the racing competitive....I just hope they don't kill off all ingenuity and variety.....


Welcome home Mark. Where have you been when we needed you to help hold up this banner? Some of us here have been wishing the same wish for the past few weeks as this was being discussed. Glad to have you back even if it is for another short stint.

Gary

[BrentJackson]

Brent, as soon as you go covering the wheels as I'm understanding what you describe, well, aren't we essentially changing the formula to more of a protptype sportscar formula more like the late CANAM cars. Not necessarily a bad thing mind you, but it's no longer truly an open wheel car.

I would advocate just a cover on the top of the wheels, for aerodynamic efficiency and safety reasons. The covers would come out from the center bodywork to just cover the wheels.

I'm thinking something like THIS:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5998/penskepc18rah7.jpg

Now, take this and add a wing that stetches the full width of the car in the rear, and remove the pieces connecting the "fenders" to the front wing.

Miatanut, I know of the wings on speedway cars being not very useful, but I don't know if only 500 founds of downforce would do it. At 230+ miles an hour, that little downforce does very little. At lower speeds its worth more, but on an oval you might as well have none at all - and if you center that downforce on the funnels with the weight out back, you still get a very loose car at all times, which is not good for competition or safety.

[nigelred5]

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1985/St_Petersburg-1985-11-03-011.jpg

[cartpix]

^^^ I think those last 2 photos should be posted in the ugly car thread t show that there are, indeed, uglier cars than the Dallara.

Jeff

[RJL25]

i think as others have said that we should just go back to the days of drafting up a tight and specific set of technical regulations and allow the chassis manufacturers to do their thing and sell their chassis to the teams. The best chassis gets the most sales, which forces the other manufacturers to lift their games, and you get to a point where new chassis come along every year and it just adds another element to the racing.

Also as for the Handford devise, look like it or not, the thing worked! for any doubters, lets re-visit the 2000 Michigan 500 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25bHlzCbLuA

now what was wrong with that specification of race car? They look good, they're fast, they produced great racing and they sounded **** hot! Just bring back that spec of race car and then let the manufacturers go nuts and build the things!

[jimispeed]

i think as others have said that we should just go back to the days of drafting up a tight and specific set of technical regulations and allow the chassis manufacturers to do their thing and sell their chassis to the teams. The best chassis gets the most sales, which forces the other manufacturers to lift their games, and you get to a point where new chassis come along every year and it just adds another element to the racing.

Also as for the Handford devise, look like it or not, the thing worked! for any doubters, lets re-visit the 2000 Michigan 500 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25bHlzCbLuA

now what was wrong with that specification of race car? They look good, they're fast, they produced great racing and they sounded **** hot! Just bring back that spec of race car and then let the manufacturers go nuts and build the things!


Great cars!!!

[BrentJackson]

i think as others have said that we should just go back to the days of drafting up a tight and specific set of technical regulations and allow the chassis manufacturers to do their thing and sell their chassis to the teams. The best chassis gets the most sales, which forces the other manufacturers to lift their games, and you get to a point where new chassis come along every year and it just adds another element to the racing.

Also as for the Handford devise, look like it or not, the thing worked! for any doubters, lets re-visit the 2000 Michigan 500 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25bHlzCbLuA

now what was wrong with that specification of race car? They look good, they're fast, they produced great racing and they sounded **** hot! Just bring back that spec of race car and then let the manufacturers go nuts and build the things!

That spec would be deadly at a place like Texas, and produced parades at places like Surfers and Vancouver.

My picture was not exactly what I had in mind, but it was the closest I could find.

[Miatanut]

Miatanut, I know of the wings on speedway cars being not very useful, but I don't know if only 500 founds of downforce would do it. At 230+ miles an hour, that little downforce does very little. At lower speeds its worth more, but on an oval you might as well have none at all - and if you center that downforce on the funnels with the weight out back, you still get a very loose car at all times, which is not good for competition or safety.
With tunnels on an open wheeler, the downforce is strongly weighted to the rear. For that reason, if you banned rear wings, you would still find front wings on the car. The front wings would be needed to have an aero balanced car, rather than a pushing pig.

In 1970 (my first Indy), there was virtually no downforce. Five hundred pounds is quite a lot. I don't understand the logic that downforce is worth less at higher speeds than at lower speeds. The faster you go, the more downforce the tunnels produce. The only exception to this is chassis setups designed to deliberately choke-off the venturi by the chassis lowering at top speeds, so the car can shed downforce at top speeds. That's really a setup for a road course, and one you wouldn't use on a superspeedway. The stepped bottom/plank approach I would propose would make it a lot more diffucult to accomplish that sort of setup anyway.

While the fugliness of the cars and the fact I can't stand the Daytona Mafia are a major turn-off, I can't ignore the fact the best professional road racing today is in Grand Sham. The low downforce formula is the reason.

[Miatanut]

I would love to see the modern incarnation of a Indy Roadster run on ovals but since this series will be on a mix of circuits, alas it wont happen. I do think though that if the IRL had stuck to their original forumla of ovals only that roadster concept would have separated them enough from Champ Car/CART to ensure survival maybe for both. It didn't happen....so where are we?

That's what I thought they should have done too. If they had gone with that front engine winged open-wheeler they floated, both series would have survived and maybe even flourished, because they would be offering such different products. The Panoz prototype was always fun to watch. A little rough on the ears, but fun to watch.

[BrentJackson]

With tunnels on an open wheeler, the downforce is strongly weighted to the rear. For that reason, if you banned rear wings, you would still find front wings on the car. The front wings would be needed to have an aero balanced car, rather than a pushing pig.

In 1970 (my first Indy), there was virtually no downforce. Five hundred pounds is quite a lot. I don't understand the logic that downforce is worth less at higher speeds than at lower speeds. The faster you go, the more downforce the tunnels produce. The only exception to this is chassis setups designed to deliberately choke-off the venturi by the chassis lowering at top speeds, so the car can shed downforce at top speeds. That's really a setup for a road course, and one you wouldn't use on a superspeedway. The stepped bottom/plank approach I would propose would make it a lot more diffucult to accomplish that sort of setup anyway.

While the fugliness of the cars and the fact I can't stand the Daytona Mafia are a major turn-off, I can't ignore the fact the best professional road racing today is in Grand Sham. The low downforce formula is the reason.

If you lost the wings, you still end up with the tunnels in the middle of the car, which when combined with the weight of the engine/transmission at the back, would make the car a oversteering nightmare.

Downforce means less at lower speeds because there is less of it. That's simple physics. That's why F1 cars grow all sorts of appendages at Monaco - making it work right.

I agree about turning down the downforce, but losing the wings isn't smart from a drivers' perspective.

(Ah, it's nice to be debating technical stuff instead of tossing barbs at each other again. :) )

[Miatanut]

If you lost the wings, you still end up with the tunnels in the middle of the car, which when combined with the weight of the engine/transmission at the back, would make the car a oversteering nightmare.

Downforce means less at lower speeds because there is less of it. That's simple physics. That's why F1 cars grow all sorts of appendages at Monaco - making it work right.

I agree about turning down the downforce, but losing the wings isn't smart from a drivers' perspective.

(Ah, it's nice to be debating technical stuff instead of tossing barbs at each other again. :) )

The tunnels START around the middle of the car. The "ceiling" area of the tunnels and undertray form an approximately triangular shape, with the pointy end at the front and the wide end at the rear. If they were a prefect triangle (which they aren't), and the pressure distribution were equal throughout the area (which it isn't), the center of pressure would be at the center of the area, which would be 2/3 of the way back from the pointy end. Somewhere near the center of mass.

From my understanding, the aero design of these car is intended to be set-up so they are neutral with a good deal of torque going through the rear wheels, so the driver can get the power down coming out of a turn. With open wheelers, preventing the front from pushing on acceleration is a challenge. Even if the rules were set up to eliminate rear wings, the downforce would be predominantly to the rear, so the cars wouldn't be these spooky beasts which gradually transition to oversteer under part throttle as speed increases. In my initial post above, I noted front wings would shrink as needed to maintain aero balance. I would expect they would become pretty small, but there would still need to be front wings just to avoid high speed steer, not oversteer.

Agreed, much nicer to talk about this sutff than the political BS that has dominated the sport for years. :up:

[fan-veteran]

There should be wings. They simply are needed at least to ballance the downforce in front and rear. You know what is the point - what kind of wings (how big, and inclined) and two: what fraction of downforce to come from the body (tunnels, which in turn points out an issue about the tunnels geometry). We should not forget the very important problem with downforce becoming actually a lift should the car rises it's nose with so so angle.
And here comes the strenght of a spec car - it's aerodynamics could be done to be exactly what is needed. The freedom of appearance, the safety, the performance - all theese things could be considered. And it would come in the cheapest possible way.
The similar with engine - exactly power which is considered to be needed, the cost of engine and maintenace, and more.
So, in my oppinion, the spec car has no alternatives. Just look - what is the point of multiple manufacturers competing (namely competing) to develop racing cars ..... which at the end must be as equal as possible for the reason a competitive racing to exist? It is nonsense to me.

[nanders]

This was published on autoracing1.com. I'm posting it here.


Champ Car teams on pace with IRL teams? UPDATE #2 Champ Car employee Scot Elkins, who oversaw the design of the Panoz Champ Car, writes, Dear AutoRacing1.com, As you well know, I rarely speak about rumors and whatnot, but today's posting by DB Cooper requires a bit of a reply, and since I only have 39 days as a Champ Car World Series (CCWS) employee left, I thought "what the hell"

I cannot fathom where the urban legend that the DP01 is not a viable oval chassis began? The fact is both the DP01 and the 016 Atlantic chassis' incorporated the most recent safety features that all modern monocoque chassis require. There is no "oval spec" vs. ""road course spec" in regards to the crash test specifications, it simply does not exist. All modern monocoque are build to the same standard, and that standard is typically the FIA crash testing specifications for F1 and F3. To give complete disclosure, the DP01 was built and crash tested to a combination of IRL, F1, and existing Champ Car test specifications, in order to obtain the safest car relative to the most current established regulations. There are differing opinions as to whether a low or high nose configuration is better or worse for running over crash debris on ovals, but these are only opinions and no data supports either configuration. So anyone that states that the safety levels of the DP01 or the 016 are not suitable for ovals, is making a very uneducated statement.

It is true that the aerodynamic configurations that both the DP01 and 016 currently use, may not be suited for ovals, but only from the standpoint that the cars have too much drag to have the "close" racing and high speeds that is typically expected when racing on an oval. A few changes to items such as the wings and underbodies, would make both cars very competitive in an oval racing environment.

Furthermore, the crash test specifications for the DP01 and 016 were determined by myself, Steve Sewell (Atlantic Technical Director) and the respective engineers at the chassis manufacturers, they were not in any way determined by any of the owners of CCWS.

Please forgive my rant, but the staff at CCWS worked very hard to create these cars to be the safest possible, regardless of the circuit, and I felt that the record needed to be set straight. Sincerely,
Scot Elkins

[jimispeed]

This was published on autoracing1.com. I'm posting it here.


Champ Car teams on pace with IRL teams? UPDATE #2 Champ Car employee Scot Elkins, who oversaw the design of the Panoz Champ Car, writes, Dear AutoRacing1.com, As you well know, I rarely speak about rumors and whatnot, but today's posting by DB Cooper requires a bit of a reply, and since I only have 39 days as a Champ Car World Series (CCWS) employee left, I thought "what the hell"

I cannot fathom where the urban legend that the DP01 is not a viable oval chassis began? The fact is both the DP01 and the 016 Atlantic chassis' incorporated the most recent safety features that all modern monocoque chassis require. There is no "oval spec" vs. ""road course spec" in regards to the crash test specifications, it simply does not exist. All modern monocoque are build to the same standard, and that standard is typically the FIA crash testing specifications for F1 and F3. To give complete disclosure, the DP01 was built and crash tested to a combination of IRL, F1, and existing Champ Car test specifications, in order to obtain the safest car relative to the most current established regulations. There are differing opinions as to whether a low or high nose configuration is better or worse for running over crash debris on ovals, but these are only opinions and no data supports either configuration. So anyone that states that the safety levels of the DP01 or the 016 are not suitable for ovals, is making a very uneducated statement.

It is true that the aerodynamic configurations that both the DP01 and 016 currently use, may not be suited for ovals, but only from the standpoint that the cars have too much drag to have the "close" racing and high speeds that is typically expected when racing on an oval. A few changes to items such as the wings and underbodies, would make both cars very competitive in an oval racing environment.

Furthermore, the crash test specifications for the DP01 and 016 were determined by myself, Steve Sewell (Atlantic Technical Director) and the respective engineers at the chassis manufacturers, they were not in any way determined by any of the owners of CCWS.

Please forgive my rant, but the staff at CCWS worked very hard to create these cars to be the safest possible, regardless of the circuit, and I felt that the record needed to be set straight. Sincerely,
Scot Elkins


Well alright then let's get on with it!! Let's do some oval testing of the DP01!!

Thanks for that Scot!

[!!WALDO!!]

Well alright then let's get on with it!! Let's do some oval testing of the DP01!!

Thanks for that Scot!


For what? The car does not meet the ICS Rules. No different if the CCWS survived and was in charge, the Dallara/Panoz/Honda would be illegal.

Time to move on, these cars are not Indy Car and wishing will not make them so.

[BenRoethig]

We need a new chassis for 2010. The DP01 spec would be a good starting point. Its not like they're going to be doing anything after Long Beach, so why not use them to test some different combinations.

[Hoop-98]

I think a problem arises if you are going to allow multiple chassis providers. The DP01 was designed to meet cost constraints and performance targets. If a spec was drafted that made the DP01 legal, Dallara or Lola or Panoz themselves would be able to improve substantially on the performance of the DP01.

Also, the "styling" of the DP01 would likely not be the optimum shape for a restricted set of rules. This is not meant to fault Panoz, just pointing out that the car was never intended to compete against other chassis built to a rule set.

As far as Oval testing, the DP01 would work at Milwaukee, but any other track would require the new aero package that does not exist yet.

http://i28.tinypic.com/al0tq0.jpg

Opinion; Could the DP01 work on ovals, obviously it could. Would it be competetive to a new car built to the same technical restrictions, unknown but highly unlikely. Would a car designed with a 50/50 split of oval and road course look like the DP01, I think not. It was designed for a "look", it's competitor would be designed to be the fastest within the rules, and would be a different animal.

rh

[grungex]

Would a car designed with a 50/50 split of oval and road course look like the DP01, I think not. It was designed for a "look", it's competitor would be designed to be the fastest within the rules, and would be a different animal.


Leaving aside your highly subjective (and likely wrong) assertion that the DP-01 was designed for a "look", would a car designed with a 50/50 split of oval and road course look like the Dallara? I think not.

As far as your comment about a new aero package, I believe that it has already been widely acknowledged that it doesn't exist yet, but that hardly matters, since it could easily be designed and implemented.

[Hoop-98]

Leaving aside your highly subjective (and likely wrong) assertion that the DP-01 was designed for a "look", would a car designed with a 50/50 split of oval and road course look like the Dallara? I think not.

As far as your comment about a new aero package, I believe that it has already been widely acknowledged that it doesn't exist yet, but that hardly matters, since it could easily be designed and implemented.

I'll go with the subjective look comment, as are your hardly matterrs comments.

Remember when the DP01 had to grow back to Lola size after it missed the downforce targets? It gained 200 pounds and 4 inches after it was easily designed.

What, other than wishful thinking, makes you think that these easily designed and implemented pieces really hardly matter? And of course, if they had to compete against someone they would matter a great deal doncha think?

Will it look like s Dallara, I highly doubt that either, but the rules that led to the high nose as a way around rules restrictions do not apply here. Why would one want a high CG in the front, except as a way to get more downforce under restrictive rules.

rh

[Helicon_One]

The assumption that the DP01 isn't oval safe probably came from the fact that its introduction coincided with the total removal of ovals from the CCWS schedule. I doubt that the IRL would adopt it as their new chassis for pride reasons if nothing else, but if the chassis is suitable then using it as the basis for a "DP02" would be excellent to see.

[Pat Wiatrowski]

The assumption that the DP01 isn't oval safe probably came from the fact that its introduction coincided with the total removal of ovals from the CCWS schedule. I doubt that the IRL would adopt it as their new chassis for pride reasons if nothing else, but if the chassis is suitable then using it as the basis for a "DP02" would be excellent to see.

I think you people need to read Steve Elkins comments (in AR1).

[!!WALDO!!]

Good point. There may also be more than the IRL rules involved as well, like physical laws. It's been speculated here, and elsewhere, that the cooling requirements of the IRL NA engine running on ethanol might not be accomodated by the DP-01. The IRL cars themselves required modification when the switch to the different fuel happened. Perhaps one of the more technically oriented people here could comment on that.

The Dallara just had reinforcement to the side for side impact as mandated by FIA for 2008. One of the reason equipment is slower in getting to teams.

The DP01 does not meet it. Both cars were built for cost control, the car that wasn't was the Haas imported Lola.

This is funny: "We need a new chassis for 2010. The DP01 spec would be a good starting point." 2007,2008,2009, three years. I remember the 1992 Galmer winning the 500 and Galles talking about the fact the car was obsolete when delivered.

We have people dying to hang on to a thread of the CCWS and a car that raced 15 times and helped put the CCWS is the thing. They would still be in business if they had held on to Lolas as the teams would not had to pay out for a car that the CCWS, Elan and Panoz were getting something for.

I think if the IRL owns these cars, sell them to the Japanese or build a third ladder. If not the Dr. Don can see if he can convert them into something to recoup money.

[grungex]

I'll go with the subjective look comment, as are your hardly matterrs comments.

Remember when the DP01 had to grow back to Lola size after it missed the downforce targets? It gained 200 pounds and 4 inches after it was easily designed.

So? That has nothing to do with being designed for looks, as you wrongly claimed.


What, other than wishful thinking, makes you think that these easily designed and implemented pieces really hardly matter? And of course, if they had to compete against someone they would matter a great deal doncha think?

You missed the point entirely -- I didn't say oval aero bits hardly matter, I said it hardly matters that they aren't currently available, as it would be easy to make them available if needed. Wishful thinking, indeed.

[Hoop-98]

So? That has nothing to do with being designed for looks, as you wrongly claimed.



You missed the point entirely -- I didn't say oval aero bits hardly matter, I said it hardly matters that they aren't currently available, as it would be easy to make them available if needed. Wishful thinking, indeed.

Wrong, well now that's an opinion eh?

It is very easy to see why the F1 cars evolved towards the high nose, why would a spec car that had no aero restrictions want one? Why didn't the Lolas and Reynards evolve that way?

I got the point, I just don't agree that it would be trivial to design the pieces. I think that is your wishful thinking. You would have to design, test, install, test etc. Very feasible of course, but not trivial or 'easy".

So I guess I'll end up with one question, what engineering explanation makes sense for the high nose?

rh

[grungex]

Once again, as you so often do, you have chosen to redefine the dicussion midstream when inconsistencies in your original statements are revealed. It is pointless, and annoying.

You're right about everything, and nobody else knows anything about cars. Perhaps you and Wlado can get together. Satisfied?

[Hoop-98]

Nope, I hoped you had some discussion instead of personalizing this, not satisfied. You said I was probably wrong about something, thought you might be kind enough to point out an alternative or any data to support your position. Disappointed in your response is all grungie.

rh

[grungex]

You made the statement, why should I shoulder the burden of proof, hoopie?

[Hoop-98]

You know, it's not really about you or I. Someone posted an opinion, another poster says it is likely wrong. One poster offers several reasons for his statement, second poster says it is because I am like Waldo....lol, Maybe something like, perhaps they raised the nose because.........would be on topic, maybe not, wouldn't want to burden everyone.

rh

[!!WALDO!!]

You know, it's not really about you or I. Someone posted an opinion, another poster says it is likely wrong. One poster offers several reasons for his statement, second poster says it is because I am like Waldo....lol, Maybe something like, perhaps they raised the nose because.........would be on topic, maybe not, wouldn't want to burden everyone.

rh


Seen this guy before on other sites. Kill the messenger when you can't kill the message.

Wasting your time with this guy. I will probably get a PM stating I am insulting him from the moderator.

Based on what I have read he does a pretty good job going after everyone.

Staying with it? Good luck, he will get more personal.

[ShiftingGears]

I never quite understood the salivation over the Panoz DP-01.

It was slightly better than F1 cars when it came to passing opportunities, and producing spectacle. But it didn't go far enough. As a race fan I want a car that distinguishes itself from other open wheeler series. (see various rants about no wings, resulting in less aero grip lost when tailing a car through a corner, also letting the cars be driven on ovals etc etc...)

[nigelred5]

ther was nothing earth shattering or revolutionary about the car, it was simply up to date. I believe it would/could have eventually been as good of a chassis for the series as the lolas were if the series had been promoted and financed in the proper ways. But that's over now, sooooo..... look for it at a historic's race near you along side old lolas and marchs. :(

[Miatanut]

I never quite understood the salivation over the Panoz DP-01.

It was slightly better than F1 cars when it came to passing opportunities, and producing spectacle. But it didn't go far enough. As a race fan I want a car that distinguishes itself from other open wheeler series. (see various rants about no wings, resulting in less aero grip lost when tailing a car through a corner, also letting the cars be driven on ovals etc etc...)

It's curious how to some of us, it's so obvious the wings need to go if better racing is to come back, but for others, it's unthinkable that a racing car would not have wings, even though through most of the history of racing cars, they didn't have wings.

Is it an age thing?

[!!WALDO!!]

It's curious how to some of us, it's so obvious the wings need to go if better racing is to come back, but for others, it's unthinkable that a racing car would not have wings, even though through most of the history of racing cars, they didn't have wings.

Is it an age thing?

It is I said when McLaren showed up with that car in 1971 "We will rue the day" Pter Revson won the pole with a NTR and his time would have been 34th fastest in 1972.

Oh stupid me was right, a 17 mph spread.

[garyshell]

It's curious how to some of us, it's so obvious the wings need to go if better racing is to come back, but for others, it's unthinkable that a racing car would not have wings, even though through most of the history of racing cars, they didn't have wings.

Is it an age thing?

Yep, I think it is. Not just because of age itself, but because our age gives us the luxury of having seen such cars without wings.

Gary