Skirts, wings, and other thoughts...

[Hoop-98]

Just some random thoughts about leading-trailing car interference, washing up to the wall etc..

Note this has not been thought out, evaluated, or by any means a proven doable concept.

90 Pct of downforce from undertray.
For and Aft adjustment of undertray (say 4 inches) to adjust center of pressure
Movable sideskirts to decrease ride height and pitch sensitivity.

Small High mounted front and rear "balance" wings to trim the car, one driver adjustable.

For super speedways only, a pitch down mode for the wings to increase downforce whenever the throttle is fully lifted, allowing the driver to get the car back under control.

Back to the 600...

rh

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just some random thoughts about leading-trailing car interference, washing up to the wall etc..

Note this has not been thought out, evaluated, or by any means a proven doable concept.

90 Pct of downforce from undertray.
For and Aft adjustment of undertray (say 4 inches) to adjust center of pressure
Movable sideskirts to decrease ride height and pitch sensitivity.

Small High mounted front and rear "balance" wings to trim the car, one driver adjustable.

For super speedways only, a pitch down mode for the wings to increase downforce whenever the throttle is fully lifted, allowing the driver to get the car back under control.

Back to the 600...

rh

I am going to take a risk here knowing you know engineering FAR better than I, and still disagree.

I don't think I want undertray downforce increased. I think I would love them to run Indy with next to no wings at all. Take away any aero or make it very minimal and then you will see lots of lifting for the corners. With that...we will get passing back.

[Hoop-98]

That would put you 155 - 160 in the turns, 180 laps.

rh

[garyshell]

That would put you 155 - 160 in the turns, 180 laps.

rh


And what's the problem with that? If it makes for lifting, passing, exciting racing who cares? Oh wait I can hear 'em now, "We can't let Indy Cars be slower than ________" insert your favorite or least favorite type of race car in the blank. I've be preachin' for years to any one who would listen and some that wouldn't that we need to get rid of aero as the primary means of grip, give 'em back a TON of horsepower and watch to see who can REALLY drive rather then pedal as race car.

Gary

[Alexamateo]

That would put you 155 - 160 in the turns, 180 laps.

rh

Jeff Gordon holds the Nascar record there @ 186+. With wider tires and a lower center of gravity, would they get to 190?, 195?, 200??? Just wondering.

[beachbum]

All of this sounds like IPS. Just ban the IRL cars and make everyone run IPS cars. Somehow, that concept just doesn't work for me.

I have followed racing for many years, and the topic on how to make better racing has been around long before I started listening / watching. No one has found the magic bullet. Either the cars are all similar in speed and passing becomes difficult and something of a crapshoot, or some cars are noticeably faster than others and there is lots of passing, but the same ones win all the time. The idea that "putting the driver back in the equation" suggests that there is a wide skill difference between the top drivers that will mask the better technical skills and resources of the best teams. IHMO, the best teams will still dominate and there just isn't that wide range of talent in the field. Sure some drivers are clearly superior and some are, well, not so good, but the majority are pretty close in skill.

[Hoop-98]

Jeff Gordon holds the Nascar record there @ 186+. With wider tires and a lower center of gravity, would they get to 190?, 195?, 200??? Just wondering.

Actually it's Casey Mears, and Cup cars have downforce. It's really impossible to say without knowing the tires but they would be closer than you might think, with 0 downforce I don't think an Indycar would lap at 200.

rh

[NickFalzone]

A Cup car with the right setup and tires could probably get up near 200 at Indy, but it would probably take 3 laps to do so.

[call_me_andrew]

200 average or 200 top speed. I know they can hit 200 on the straights but they corner at 160. I'd love to see what a modified car would do at Indy.

[nigelred5]

I have to say, I saw some pretty good on track action sunday, but there was never any doubt in my mind a Penske was going to win the race from the outset.

We need a return to open chassis design and engine competition.

[garyshell]

We need a return to open chassis design and engine competition.


Break out your checkbook, nigel5. No one else is going to step up and fund the cubic dollars that would be required to do anything like this.

Gary

[Hoop-98]

200 average or 200 top speed. I know they can hit 200 on the straights but they corner at 160. I'd love to see what a modified car would do at Indy.

Average, Probably 160 - 210 or something like that..about like a modified.

rh

[EagleEye]

I am going to take a risk here knowing you know engineering FAR better than I, and still disagree.

I don't think I want undertray downforce increased. I think I would love them to run Indy with next to no wings at all. Take away any aero or make it very minimal and then you will see lots of lifting for the corners. With that...we will get passing back.

With little or no wings to create drag, the cars would fly down the straights, and drivers would have to lift in the corners. I'd go with a mid-80's March type under tray, which produced so much downforce, they started running those really small wings. Sneva even practiced at Michigan with out a rear wing! The CARt officals asked the team to put it back on...

Hoop is on the right track, but I'd still use small front and rear wings to adjust the CP and balance.

[Bob Riebe]

Break out your checkbook, nigel5. No one else is going to step up and fund the cubic dollars that would be required to do anything like this.

Gary
After Penske's push-rod surprise in '94, there were already two people working on push-rod engines for the next year, before USAC banned them.

The only thing holding people back is specs. With specs. ONLY the one who can afford to cheat the rules the best wins. (spec.-quasi-spec. rules are supposed to reduce everyone down to the same level. Anyone who defies that, has cheated the rules.)
Neither sports cars or open wheel racing will admit their rules are killing racing , they would lose dictator type control if they did. There will be no change till the series are either DOA.

[garyshell]

After Penske's push-rod surprise in '94, there were already two people working on push-rod engines for the next year, before USAC banned them.

The only thing holding people back is specs. With specs. ONLY the one who can afford to cheat the rules the best wins. (spec.-quasi-spec. rules are supposed to reduce everyone down to the same level. Anyone who defies that, has cheated the rules.)
Neither sports cars or open wheel racing will admit their rules are killing racing , they would lose dictator type control if they did. There will be no change till the series are either DOA.

I'd love to see innovation and the run-what-ya-brung racing back at the speedway, but where will the money come from? How do you propose we do this and still have teams like Sarah Fisher or any number of others who were there last Sunday?

Sadly, the only place left for such innovation is Bonneville and only because big heavily funded teams don't dominate all the classes. As much as I hate to admit it, I fear those days are past us. But I would love to be proven wrong, if you have some proposal that would allow for such innovation on the kinds of budgets that are a reality today.

Gary

[Bob Riebe]

Actually it's Casey Mears, and Cup cars have downforce. It's really impossible to say without knowing the tires but they would be closer than you might think, with 0 downforce I don't think an Indycar would lap at 200.

rh
To paraphrase:
Mario Andretti said in Motorsport magazine last year, said the problem with Indy is that it takes no more than average talent to run 220 around Indy with todays cars. Skill in using brakes and accelerator is not needed; it is just pedal to the metal.
The driver is only as good as the car he is in.

He said what is missing are very fast cars burning down the straights at 250+, but then HAVING to brake, but using no more brakes than necessary to be faster than the guy you are trying to beat, and then as much throttle as it take to beat him, WITHOUT driving into the wall.
That separates the men from the boys.

[garyshell]

He said what is missing are very fast cars burning down the straights at 250+, but then HAVING to brake, but using no more brakes than necessary to be faster than the guy you are trying to beat, and then as much throttle as it take to beat him, WITHOUT driving into the wall.
That separates the men from the boys.


I agree with all that except the 250+ part. We don't NEED to be at that sort of speed to regain the excitement. Change the cars so folks HAVE to pedal them and the excitment will return even if the top speed is 200 or less.

Gary

[Hoop-98]

To paraphrase:
Mario Andretti said in Motorsport magazine last year, said the problem with Indy is that it takes no more than average talent to run 220 around Indy with todays cars. Skill in using brakes and accelerator is not needed; it is just pedal to the metal.
The driver is only as good as the car he is in.

He said what is missing are very fast cars burning down the straights at 250+, but then HAVING to brake, but using no more brakes than necessary to be faster than the guy you are trying to beat, and then as much throttle as it take to beat him, WITHOUT driving into the wall.
That separates the men from the boys.

He has selective memory, they haven't raced at over 250 on the straights ever at Indy and they haven't, on a normal lap braked, in about 30 years. They have, on occasion, hit 240s but they certainly did not out brake anyone at Indy since the 80s.

They set up for a perfect lap flat, and very rarely hit hit a perfect lap in the race.

Look at the data. I agree with the spirit but the facts are just at odds with the statement. I have seen many great races cornering at 220 - 230, not sure you have to corner at 160. But if they did I would watch ;n)

rh

[Bob Riebe]

I'd love to see innovation and the run-what-ya-brung racing back at the speedway, but where will the money come from? How do you propose we do this and still have teams like Sarah Fisher or any number of others who were there last Sunday?

Sadly, the only place left for such innovation is Bonneville and only because big heavily funded teams don't dominate all the classes. As much as I hate to admit it, I fear those days are past us. But I would love to be proven wrong, if you have some proposal that would allow for such innovation on the kinds of budgets that are a reality today.

Gary
Rules were NEVER run-what-brung, rules were inclusive of a HUGE variety of various power-plants with equiv. standards, between which all were supposed to be able to reach equal competitiveness, without specifications that had to be met.
BROAD boundaries were set-up. How one worked the rules between them was up the the car builder.
I DO NOT remember shrinking fields or lack of one race specials during ANY of those years.
It was only after CART and USAC started making the boundaries narrower and narrower that suddenly participants started to become fewer and fewer.

Oddly, Dan Gurney, (lover of push-rod power) told his cronies, and USAC, that he heed another thirty five inches cubed for his push-rod engines to be able to run truly comp. without being built to handgrenade standards.
Even after a flury of prod. based push-rod engines showed up at Indy, (including one by default that was all iron out of a school bus) both CART and USAC said NO.

Now that was the epitome of reducing costs, so don't tell me that opening the rules is going to COST more.
That boat don't float.
Limiting that which can be used mean suppliers can charge just as damned much as they choose and there is not one damn thing ANYONE can do about it, except santions who do not give a damn, I would say at least partly because some suppliers are stuffing their pockets.

If you think what they are doing now is not the reason, then why as the series shrinks, they make more rules and it gets worse, and now winning Indy multiple times IS ONLY a matter of being on the proper team.
Collapse of the IRL is BETTER than the farce that exists now.

The ONLY people who call the old JUNK formula a junk formula was the high-buck component builders who suddenly could not make demands and charge what they wanted because the racers NO LONGER needed them.

That is the point we are back at and it is time for either another junk formula or for open wheel racing to collapse.
Till it pulls its head out of its buttocks, those who are true fans and need to see open wheel racers with more power than needed can go see sprint cars on half-mile or larger tracks. Especially the unwinged cars.

[Bob Riebe]

He has selective memory, they haven't raced at over 250 on the straights ever at Indy and they haven't, on a normal lap braked, in about 30 years. They have, on occasion, hit 240s but they certainly did not out brake anyone at Indy since the 80s.

They set up for a perfect lap flat, and very rarely hit hit a perfect lap in the race.

Look at the data. I agree with the spirit but the facts are just at odds with the statement. I have seen many great races cornering at 220 - 230, not sure you have to corner at 160. But if they did I would watch ;n)

rh
Sorry between Mario who drove more 500s than anyone except AJ, or you, I will take what Mario says.

I do not have, nor have access to any accurate top speeds at Indy, but during 1996, what were the KNOWN top speeds his by the boys who set practice and qualifying laps between 239 and 241 mph?

While Cheever was continually lapping at 236, because he had nothing better to do by his own words, what were his corner and straight speeds?

[Hoop-98]

About 245

[Bob Riebe]

About 245
Cool.
Mario was making a comparison and NOT SAYING he hit that speed.

I am too lazy to try to dig the magazine out if I still have it here, but his comparison was between going very, very fast down the straights and surving the corners, verses simply flat-footing it around the track which today takes no special talent.
Bob
PS-- Now you have me thinking and I may have mistakenly remembered the 250 number from another source , but except for that all is paraphrased perfectly.

[Hoop-98]

Cool.
Mario was making a comparison and NOT SAYING he hit that speed.

I am too lazy to try to dig the magazine out if I still have it here, but his comparison was between going very, very fast down the straights and surving the corners, verses simply flat-footing it around the track which today takes no special talent.
Bob
PS-- Now you have me thinking and I may have mistakenly remembered the 250 number from another source , but except for that all is paraphrased perfectly.

As I said, they have been flat "on a perfect lap" at Indy for 30 years. Certainly during the race they lift the vast majority of the laps.

When they had more power they cranked in more downforce. I think in some ways these cars are much less forgiving at the limit.The old bias ply days had a large slip angle, now a days, the cars are stuck then boom they are gone.

jm2c


rh

[Hoop-98]

We "leased" national level engines in dirt karting, 600 - 900 for one race event...and only got the good ones because we could run up front...The cost of racing is only related to how bad someone wants to win ...


jm2c


rh

[DBell]

I like your ideas Hoop. I hope someone in the IRL is thinking along these lines for next generation of cars.