Would you hate this?

[call_me_andrew]

I've been thinking about what the new car would have to be like. It would have to be clunky enough that the driver has to lift on ovals, and sleek enough to hold its own against a Formula 1 car on a road course. And then it has to be cheap and safe.

One idea I've heard about the new car is that the engine would have 100 horsepower more on road courses than on ovals. On the surface, that sounds like a great safety feature. But that would probably create more of the no-lift pack racing a lot of open-wheel fans have expressed a dislike for.

I'd like to know how you would feel about a grooved tire for oval races only. I know what you're thinking. Formula 1 tried it and it didn't work so great. Taking away mechanical grip just created a black market for downforce (i.e. winglets). But since the IRL has more control over the chassis, we could actually do it right. A rear engine car already has plenty of mechanical grip. Even with the wings set for as little downforce as possible, some drivers are still running Indy wide open. They'd still be running slicks at road courses. It wouldn't require any real changes to the cars since the same engines and wheels would be used. There could be something to this.

[Breeze]

c-m-andrew, the two tune engine is the better solution, IMO. As far as no lift oval racing, that's almost entirely down to aero grip vs mechanical grip. I don't think you could ever pay me enough to run 200MPH around an oval on grooved tires. The lateral forces would chew them up in no time.

Want throttle lift in the corners on your ovals? Smaller wings. Especially the rear wing.

[indycool]

Andrew, please tell us why an Indycar has anything to do with a Formula One car.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Here's what I want in simple terms. A new engine formula for small, energy-efficient but powerful turbos, and possibly some kind of energy recovery hybrid system. Competition between multiple engine manufacturers. Plus a spec chassis to control costs and ensure close competition. Brutal straightline speed, limited cornering speed, for more passing on ovals and road courses as well. And get it done by 2010.

[indycool]

Simple terms, makes some sense to me. And I think the original plan was 2010. But as things have played out, it's gonna be 2011, IMO. The reason is economic. If they did something for 2010, the ex-CC teams would be buying new equipment three times in four years and likely fall by the wayside.

NASCAR teams are taking on investors and I imagine one of the reasons is that the COT made flower pots out of 700 race cars. That's quite a financial hit for teams with 10 or 12 cars (or more) in their stables, and one I'm glad the ICS is trying to avoid and keep everybody going.

[pits4me]

Andrew, please tell us why an Indycar has anything to do with a Formula One car.

All in yor perspective IC. Its more comparative to F1 than NASCAR stock cars. Unless you consider their oval element something common we should take into consideration.

[jarrambide]

Andrew, please tell us why an Indycar has anything to do with a Formula One car.
Some people do believe that having the fastest car gives you some sort of bragging rights, ironically series (specially F1) are always looking for ways to decrease the speed for safety reasons.

I do remember when CART advertised the series as the fastest series in the world, trying to sell new fans the importance of being the fastest ans at the same time proclaim that Champ Cars were faster than F1 cars, which technically was true, on a straight those pre pop off valve, rev limiter, turbo CCs could go faster than an F1 car, but in reality CC`s were slower on the same tracks, regardless of changes in track conditions, it was obvious that ion the same track an F1 was faster.

Now, even tough we all know many fans (specially casual fans) do give a lot of weight to the speed, we all know is almost impossible to see the differences in speeds without someone showing you telemetry, unless you are talking of considerable differences in speed, I´m not saying no one can do it, but the huge majority of fans and even people involved in the racing business would have troubles watching OW cars at different speeds ina straight and tell you which one was going faster.

I don´t need a series to be as fast as F1 (I have F1 for that, I watch every race, I watch many series, don´t need them to be all the same), but I don´t want a series to have the speeds of lets say A1 Grand Prix unless they are feeder series, I have no problems watching Atlantic races or Indy Light races, I look at them with a different light, but if you are going to sell me a supposedly top tier series you better have speed, and even if some don´t like it, F1 isthe measuring stick for speed wise for OWR.

[NickFalzone]

But... IndyCars are the fastest racecars in the world, unless you count dragsters. On roadcourses of course F1 are dominant. But IndyCars race at 220+ mph, F1 do not. That F1s handle a bit better, accelerate faster, etc. does not diminish the fact that IRL cars simply go faster in a typical race.

[MDS]

One idea I've heard about the new car is that the engine would have 100 horsepower more on road courses than on ovals.

They're doing this in 2010, its called a turbocharger.

[jarrambide]

But... IndyCars are the fastest racecars in the world, unless you count dragsters. On roadcourses of course F1 are dominant. But IndyCars race at 220+ mph, F1 do not. That F1s handle a bit better, accelerate faster, etc. does not diminish the fact that IRL cars simply go faster in a typical race.
Typical race?, what is a typical race? you just said that on a road course an F1 car would be faster, and we know that an F1 car doesn´t race on an oval so we can´t compare speeds there.

If by a typical race you are implying that because an IRL car usually races ovals and their average speed is faster than the average of F1 cars that never race ovals, are you smoking something?

You can´t compare ovals vs courses, only using courses is not fair either because current IC had oval racing in mind.

But most importantly, do you really care which car is faster?, do you know that because of changes in both series the cars are going slower than they could? that and the fact that I wouldn´t get into a pissing contest to see which car was better racing wise, come on, we are using an old chassis an our engine has our revs limited at 10,300 while F1 engines are limited to 19,000 rpm´s (key fact here that both engines have a rev limiter), our engines have 650 hp, there engines 700 (again, both engines could do better), their cars weight 600 kilograms with the driver, ours weight 690 kilograms without driver and fuel, carbon disc brakes vs steel discs

Are you sure you want to talk for example about car development?, do you really care?, do you really know about it? as I said, I dare you to compare speeds and tell me which car is going faster, but if you feel the crap of "the fastest car" which even when used by CART I thought it was stupid (and I was a huge CART fan, but that fastest thing was just that, crap, they had better cars, period, that wasn´t why I was a CART fan).

[indycool]

.....which goes back to what I posted. IMO, Indycar racing is Indycar racing and F1 racing is F1 racing and NASCAR racing is NASCAR racing and barstool racing is barstool racing.

After Jerry Grant at Ontario and Tom Sneva at Indy hit the 200 mile-an-hour mark, the sale of a series based on speeds slowly started to become a minimal factor as rules were made to slow the cars for safety. Indeed, NASCAR even had 200 mile-an-hour qualifiers at Talladega in stock cars back then.

Quite simply, there was no other mountains to climb in speed that would rattle the public's windows. We will not see 250 at Indy....ever. CART was braying it would be faster than the IRL at Texas and created a problem of its own that resulted in cancellation. And Formula One has nothing to do with Indy car racing, races in front of different customers and at different tracks.

[jarrambide]

.....which goes back to what I posted. IMO, Indycar racing is Indycar racing and F1 racing is F1 racing and NASCAR racing is NASCAR racing and barstool racing is barstool racing.

After Jerry Grant at Ontario and Tom Sneva at Indy hit the 200 mile-an-hour mark, the sale of a series based on speeds slowly started to become a minimal factor as rules were made to slow the cars for safety. Indeed, NASCAR even had 200 mile-an-hour qualifiers at Talladega in stock cars back then.

Quite simply, there was no other mountains to climb in speed that would rattle the public's windows. We will not see 250 at Indy....ever. CART was braying it would be faster than the IRL at Texas and created a problem of its own that resulted in cancellation. And Formula One has nothing to do with Indy car racing, races in front of different customers and at different tracks.


I will respectfully disagree the "different customers" part, I watch every F1 and IRL race and use to watch every CART/CC race (although it is easier to watch every F1 race without TiVo, not many compromises at 7 AM on Sundays), I know there are many like me that find more similarities than differences, after all, Open Wheel Cars with engines on the back taking laps at high speed with pit stops to change tires and refuel, everything else are just small differences, if you like OW racing you will find many of the series enjoyable, I know Americans want to feel they have their own thing, they want to be so different from the rest of the world (which explains why this is probably the only western country in which soccer, Robbie Williams, Nutella and F1 are not huge), but the essence of OWR is in almost every series out there.

[indycool]

There's no question that rear-engine race cars are rear-engine race cars, too. There're just differences in how they're raced. particularly in the U.S. and the history of the national driving championship dating back to front engine cars and board tracks and the Pike's Peak Hill Climb and dirt tracks, etc.

The idea that Indycars should be like F1 is, IMO, off target. The idea that either Indycars or F1 cars are BETTER than the other one is, IMO, off target. There's no trophy for it. Competition? In the U.S., on TV and at the gate, the ICS competes with NASCAR and F1 but EQUALLY with golf and tennis and baseball and football and bass fishing for viewership and the corporate dollar. There is PLENTY of competition for the entertainment dollar and they all know it.

But all the others are taking far more American corporate and spectator money vs. an American racing series like ICS far more than F1 is.

[NickFalzone]

I am certainly not saying that IRL is superior to F1 (though I prefer it). Simply, the fact is that in IndyCar the racing is at higher speeds. Honestly if F1 rans a few ovals and had some American drivers, I would probably watch it regularly. But much like soccer, I find the nation-to-nation competition between F1 teams to be rather dull, and while I like the occasional road race I would not sit through an entire season of races in that style of driving. Just a preference, not a superiority complex or whatever you're suggesting.

[call_me_andrew]

Wow, this really went in the opposite direction of what I was expecting. I was using Formula 1 as A) an example of a top flight OW racing series and B) an example of groved tires used with the intention of lowering cornering speeds.

Lets apply that reduced horsepower via turbo idea to The Milwaukee Mile. When we reduce horsepower, the straightaway speeds are lower. With lower speeds on the straights, there's less speed carried into the turn thus less need to lift. It's a step backwards.

Comparing IndyCar to Formula One is apples to apples. In fact, it's like comparing granny smith to macintosh. We know CART couldn't beat them on the road courses, but was faster on the ovals. Let's build something that's faster on the road courses and beat them at their own game.

Cutting the wings is not enough to make them lift on ovals. They qualify at Indy with the wings flat. I've even heard of some teams dialing the wings to negative degrees for qualifying. They have enough mechanical grip that they don't need wings, and that sleak road racer I told you about would not be any better. In order to reduce cornering speeds (without pack racing) we have to reduce mechanical grip as well.

It's not so much that being fast F1 prides itself on. It's high g-forces in turns. An IndyCar needs to be on an oval to produce the cornering g's an F1 car has. Have you ever noticed that at road races, g-forces are always absent from ESPN's telemetry? There are two ways to measure how difficult it is to drive a race car. One of them is by how the vehicle resists driver input (that market has been cornered by NASCAR and some kind of European truck racing). The other is by how much sress the vehicle puts on the driver.

If we can use groved tires to out jalopy (I'll use that as a verb in this case) NASCAR, and use slicks to have our heads ripped off our just as harshly as any European, I think we would have something.

And Breeze, I said "grooved" tires, not "rain" tires. Rain tires will get chewed up because tire makers need a softer compound to compensate for the lack of grip. I don't intend to compensate for the lack of grip.

[jarrambide]

Beat them at their own game?
F1 game is a constructor´s championship, F1 game is how much money goes into developing the cars so constructors can try to be the fastest car between the rules, that is what they present themselves as, that is their game.
Did you read Indycool post regarding speed?, cars could be so much faster, for safety reasons both series reduce speeds of the cars and the fact fans don´t really get impress anymore with speed claims.
Know, if it that important to you to be faster at a course, I´m not the expert (where are the engineers when you need them, like tamburello and hoop), but it is a combination of a lot of things that costs a lot of money to have, like those carbon discs.
But the point is that it is not about speed anymore, again, cars could be a lot quicker, as I said, as long as you don´t give me speeds like A1 Grand Prix I don´t care who is the fastest car, if I did, I wouldn´t be watching the 500 anymore, cars used to be faster before, check qualifying numbers, but the fact is that after 200 miles I can´t tell the difference.

[jarrambide]

Beat them at their own game?
F1 game is a constructor´s championship, F1 game is how much money goes into developing the cars so constructors can try to be the fastest car between the rules, that is what they present themselves as, that is their game.
Did you read Indycool post regarding speed?, cars could be so much faster, for safety reasons both series reduce speeds of the cars and the fact fans don´t really get impress anymore with speed claims.
Know, if it that important to you to be faster at a course, I´m not the expert (where are the engineers when you need them, like tamburello and hoop), but it is a combination of a lot of things that costs a lot of money to have, like those carbon discs.
But the point is that it is not about speed anymore, again, cars could be a lot quicker, as I said, as long as you don´t give me speeds like A1 Grand Prix I don´t care who is the fastest car, if I did, I wouldn´t be watching the 500 anymore, cars used to be faster before, check qualifying numbers, but the fact is that after 200 miles I can´t tell the difference.

[Breeze]

Wow, this really went in the opposite direction of what I was expecting. I was using Formula 1 as A) an example of a top flight OW racing series and B) an example of groved tires used with the intention of lowering cornering speeds.
............................
Cutting the wings is not enough to make them lift on ovals. They qualify at Indy with the wings flat. I've even heard of some teams dialing the wings to negative degrees for qualifying. They have enough mechanical grip that they don't need wings, and that sleak road racer I told you about would not be any better. In order to reduce cornering speeds (without pack racing) we have to reduce mechanical grip as well.

..............................................
If we can use groved tires to out jalopy (I'll use that as a verb in this case) NASCAR, and use slicks to have our heads ripped off our just as harshly as any European, I think we would have something.

And Breeze, I said "grooved" tires, not "rain" tires. Rain tires will get chewed up because tire makers need a softer compound to compensate for the lack of grip. I don't intend to compensate for the lack of grip.

Yeah, I said no grooved tires, too. Nothing from me a bout rain tires. And I still maintain they wouldn't be safe or practical for oval racing.

As for wings, IMS is something of an exception with respect to setup and being able to go flat all the way around. My solution was to reduce wing size. While teams may currently be minimizing the effect of current oval spec wings on superspeedways, they aren't reducing the size of the wing which means there's only so much they can do to reduce aero grip.

And besides, the only tracks where drivers don't lift or do much shifting is the superspeedways, a minority of tracks during the season. Personally I don't see a problem with going flat out on these tracks. It does make the racing different from short ovals. But if you want to create more parity, go back to wicker bills on the rear wings. That little trick made for a LOT of passing. Alternatively, reduce wing size, ESPECIALLY rear wing size for superspeedways. This won't create more passing, put it will put the emphasis on suspension setup.

If smaller wings doesn't get the job done, mandate narrower tires for superspeedways to reduce mechanical grip. But in the end, I still don't see the point in any of it. Superspeedway racing is about hauling ass for the whole race at mind boggling speeds. A full season of that would be boring as hell, but 3 or four times a year is what this series is all about. The Mix.

[indycool]

Breeze, I don't know if I agree or not, but your post makes more sense than about any I've read here.

[call_me_andrew]

The mix you say? I'm not sure Tony would agree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erHQmiqD8BI

[Breeze]

The mix you say? I'm not sure Tony would agree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erHQmiqD8BI
:rotflmao: I'm positive he didn't agree back in 1994! Fortunately saner heads have prevailed in the intervening years and Tony's therapy has been a success! We now have a mixed venue series! :p

[indycool]

Whoa, Andrew, you need to listen to that piece again. He says "oval racing is Americana and that's what we should be trying to export." He says NOTHING about being against any mix for the series. You forget, at that time (1994), Bernie was hassling CART about running road races overseas and had been for years. TG used the word EXPORT and it meant to send other countries something different from what they had. It had nothing to do with the "mix" of the series overall. Try again.

[call_me_andrew]

I just took his message to be anti-globalization.

And I forgot to mention that I suggested a wide grooved tire over a narrow slick because a wider tire will produce more drag. It could also save the teams money they would spend on two sizes of wheels.

[indycool]

Anti-globalization of the same product that the rest of the globe already had....road racing with rear-engine cars.

[jarrambide]

Anti-globalization of the same product that the rest of the globe already had....road racing with rear-engine cars.
Hey IC, you gave me a hard time when I made this same point and then you use it yourself, what´s with that? :D

[indycool]

Don't remember doing that, j. Link me back to where I did.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What TG seems to be clearly saying is that he doesn't see much point in competing globally on road courses with F1 and all the other road racing series that run around the world. The PPG Indy Car World Series, CART, and now the IRL, are the extension of the U.S. national driving championship, which was oval-based since the teens, seldom ran abroad until a visit to Silverstone and Brand's Hatch in the '70s and an oval in Argentina. He didn't say in the link I addressed, nor has he said in any other statements I've read through the years, that he was opposed to running on road courses in the U.S., or North America. As the IRL stabilized, he added 'em -- here at Infineon and The Glen, not Jerez, Ansan, Zhuhai, etc., -- different thinkin' than the CC leadership and the CART leadership before it. Remember that video clip is also from 1994.

[pits4me]

But... IndyCars are the fastest racecars in the world, unless you count dragsters. On roadcourses of course F1 are dominant. But IndyCars race at 220+ mph, F1 do not. .

Strictly high banked ovals where drivers don't have to lift and perpetual velocity becomes a key factor in getting up to speed. That doesn't mean they are the fastest race cars on the planet except dragsters. Champcars were just as quick except at Texas they pushed the G-force limit and drivers were blacking out. I think the same would be true for F1. Didn't Hoop compare sector times even though they were going in opposite directions at Indy.


I will respectfully disagree the "different customers" part, I watch every F1 and IRL race and use to watch every CART/CC race (although it is easier to watch every F1 race without TiVo, not many compromises at 7 AM on Sundays), I know there are many like me that find more similarities than differences, after all, Open Wheel Cars with engines on the back taking laps at high speed with pit stops to change tires and refuel, everything else are just small differences, if you like OW racing you will find many of the series enjoyable, I know Americans want to feel they have their own thing, they want to be so different from the rest of the world (which explains why this is probably the only western country in which soccer, Robbie Williams, Nutella and F1 are not huge), but the essence of OWR is in almost every series out there.

Spot on jarrambide. If they didn't duplicate a lions share of the technology, Indycar wouldn't appeal to an international consortium of drivers, engineers, and mechanics.

If we took away every non-American driver or team member from ICS who would be left? If we took away every non-American piece of technology what would remain?

No chassis, no engine, poor suspension technology, blah blah blah. How fans like Indycool can ignore the influence the contructors championship has on the racing industry is amazing.

[indycool]

Indianapolis is NOT a high-banked oval and Indy cars are reaching 220-plus regularly now, down from the record of 238. Those are faster than F1 cars race at.

American FANS -- a great number of them -- watch oval-track racing. The rest of the world does not pay much attention to oval-track racing, nor is it available to them. How would they get along without the F1 constructors championship? Simple. They are already. How would they get along without foreign engineers? Also simple. There are American race-car engineers, some even in NASCAR.

Do different series borrow or steal ideas from other series they feel might apply to their own programs? Sure. All the time.

[pits4me]

Indianapolis is NOT a high-banked oval and Indy cars are reaching 220-plus regularly now, down from the record of 238. Those are faster than F1 cars race at.

American FANS -- a great number of them -- watch oval-track racing. The rest of the world does not pay much attention to oval-track racing, nor is it available to them. How would they get along without the F1 constructors championship? Simple. They are already. How would they get along withoutforeign engineers? Also simple. There are American race-car engineers, lap some even in NASCAR.

Do different series borrow or steal ideas from other series they feel might apply to their own programs? Sure. All the time.

Here you go again trying to hi-jack an intelligent discussion about ovals in general and the comparative speeds between F1 and Indy style cars.

I was in Fontana when Gugelmin broke the barrier in 1997 with a 240.942 mph at Fontana, also had a practice lap of 242.333 mph. In Michigan Paul Tracy recorded a trap speed of 256.948 mph. In 2000 Gil DeFerran set a record 241.426 mph in Fontana. It would be interesting to see what DeFerran could do in his Acura ARX-01b LMP2 at Fontana. Are we up for a closed course speed record showdown?

Not sure the revelance of 238 mph here. The Superspeedway speeds at Michigan and Fontana were typically slightly higher speed than acheived at Indy, I suppose that proves the benefit of hi-banked corners and multi-lap speed velocity. Not to take anything away from Indy, but they still have to lift a little in the corners according to Montoya and he's raced at all of them.

Do you know what's the highest trap speed recorded on the front or back straightaway at Indy is, I'm just curious.

We may never know what an F-1 car will do flat out lap after lap on an oval because the cars weren't really designed for that type or racing. We do know they are much quicker off the line and far more nimble on road and street.


How would they get along without the F1 constructors championship? Simple. They are already. How would they get along withoutforeign engineers? Also simple. There are American race-car engineers, lap some even in NASCAR.

Do different series borrow or steal ideas from other series they feel might apply to their own programs? Sure. All the time.

You are way off base here. Look a little deeper into that dumbed down technology called NASCAR and ask why Toyota is kicking everyones a$$ in cup this year. You must really believe TRD ignores what's learned with their F1 engine development. Same for Honda. There's more communication on the racing side than you'd care to admit but I don't understand what you hope gain by taking that position.


American FANS -- a great number of them -- watch oval-track racing. The rest of the world does not pay much attention to oval-track racing, nor is it available to them

YES, American fans watch oval racing. Its called NASCAR! How many have the same passion for open wheel oval-racing is debatable. The rest of the world paid attention to oval racing up until 2nd world war. And you thought Indy was the first oval-style venue. Here's a clue:

[indycool]

Hijack? Baloney. I'm on topic.

Those closed-course speed record showdowns were held long ago at Talladega. Maybe some new ones are needed, but we're talking about what people RACE EACH OTHER at, and nobody races each other like the Indy cars.

I don't really buy that Montoya was lifting at Indy. Rick Mears, who had six poles there, said his hardest part of a lap there, that he finally achieved, was going through Turn 1 flat out....just like the banked tracks.

No, I don't know what the highest trap speeds are. I know, for a long, long time, the back straight was by Jim Malloy in one of Gurney's cars in the early '70s.

If an F1 car is more nimble for road and street, so be it. But F1 does NOT race courses that even approach speeds the Indy cars race at. Period.

I don't doubt that some aspects of Toyota's engine development apply to Cup. But a Cup engine must be built to Cup rules and an F1 engine must be built to F1 rules. Toyota's F1 engine doesn't blow everybody's doors off.

I think the number of people watching oval racing in the U.S. at its 800 or so short tracks around the country plus the bigger tracks speaks for itself. Yes, stock cars, but also midgets, sprints, 1/4 midgets, supermodifieds, modifieds, Silver Crown, World of Outlaws, etc. There are comparatively few road courses with professional racing and they don't even have spectator shows at a Blackhawk Farms or Grattan, etc.

[gofastandwynn]

Do you know what's the highest trap speed recorded on the front or back straightaway at Indy is, I'm just curious.

I actually don't think they have ever had a official speed trap at Indy.

It probably would have been in 96 when they had just repaved the track before the race.

IIRC, Arie did a lap at 239 on Fast Friday with a tow, and drivers saying they were hitting 250 in the straights, and the rest of the filed were in the mid 230's, So I think it was possible for Arie to have hit 255-260 on that lap.

Now, it should also be mentioned that USAC always used to run 5 more inches of boost than CART did.

As far as a closed course speed record, I think that if you took the air restrictor out of the LMPs, they could give it a go just because of the reduction in drag by covering the wheel and removing the massive amount of drag having the wheel exposed causes. (Take a look at Top Fuel & Funny Car. The Funny Car national record is 2 tenths slower than TF (4.428 to 4.659), but only 3 MPH difference (336.15 to 333.66).

But for and LMP2 car to do it you would have to increase the power. When Gil set that lap he had close to 1000 horsepower. But at the same time those car are not designed for top speed anymore, because they don't need it anymore since you don't have that 3 mile run down the Mulsanne (BTW top speed at Le Mans was 251.1 in 1988) Most of the cars are designed and built with a medium downforce setup. (also to point out that had to take the rear wing off a Formula 1 car and take it to Bonneville to get it up to 240 mph)