Get the damm chassis right

[SportscarBruce]

The conventional wisdom which says "take off the wings and let'em race, fixing everything", a view which none other that Roger Penske latched onto during his talk with Despain last week, is not valid.

There are two banes that arise in the grip department when cars run in close proximity; disruption of airflow over the front wing and disturbances in chassis df, both in force and location of maximum pressure (somewhat similiar to pitch sensitivity in effect). A related issue is the interaction of big, soft tires and sharp front wing endplates and fences.

Get away from band-aid solutions, F1's current configuration should be studied as to what NOT to do. Shortened rear wing width, pedestal-mounted huge front wings, and diffusers (for cripes sake diffusers!) made the racing worse. I couldn't believe my eyes when this year's F1 season began.

Focus attention towards smoothing and directing airflow DOWN towards the rear, move the wings back to the canard-type location of mid-90's superspeedway wings, mandate a flat bottom with radiused sidepods, and place the sidepod exits directly to the rear. Get rid of overdependence on chassis downforce. Enable the wings to work as well or better when trailing another car, and fatten up the rubber to make up for a lower aero df percentage.

Then the cars can RACE, TOUCH, PASS, and the drivers can DRIVE once again.
:s mokin:

[Chamoo]

We still need to provide the cars with some sort of downforce. We can't give them absolute minimum downforce and expect to keep safety at the levels they are at now.

I don't like your idea of a flat bottom, I think we need to produce some downforce from the bottom of the car instead of the wings. I think the design you'll see, the radical design Brian Barnhart has spoken about, will include very little downforce from the wings, which is a positive in my opinion. However, some downforce will be gained from under the car.

I'm not totally sure what to expect from the car though, it could be a bit scary at first until we adjust to it.

[Pat Wiatrowski]

We still need to provide the cars with some sort of downforce. We can't give them absolute minimum downforce and expect to keep safety at the levels they are at now.

I don't like your idea of a flat bottom, I think we need to produce some downforce from the bottom of the car instead of the wings. I think the design you'll see, the radical design Brian Barnhart has spoken about, will include very little downforce from the wings, which is a positive in my opinion. However, some downforce will be gained from under the car.

I'm not totally sure what to expect from the car though, it could be a bit scary at first until we adjust to it.

Sounds like a DP-01 to me!

[Chris R]

I am thinking the DP-01 would have been the "right step" between the current car and what will be the next car - but really the next car needs to be "better" than the DP-01 - not that the DP-01 is a bad car - just won't be the right one in 2012....

[Bob Riebe]

We still need to provide the cars with some sort of downforce. We can't give them absolute minimum downforce and expect to keep safety at the levels they are at now.

I don't like your idea of a flat bottom, I think we need to produce some downforce from the bottom of the car instead of the wings. I think the design you'll see, the radical design Brian Barnhart has spoken about, will include very little downforce from the wings, which is a positive in my opinion. However, some downforce will be gained from under the car.

I'm not totally sure what to expect from the car though, it could be a bit scary at first until we adjust to it.
With little, or no (remove the wings) aero down force, they WILL NOT be as fast as they are now even with nine hundred horse power.

[Hoop-98]

With little, or no (remove the wings) aero down force, they WILL NOT be as fast as they are now even with nine hundred horse power.

No DF = 180 MPH turn speeds at Indy. The DP01 was simply the result of lifting the rules that had been introduced since the late 90's to slow the cars down. No magic tricks. Still over 1/2 it's downforce from the wings.

http://i31.tinypic.com/11av86v.jpg

We are limited to about ~1.7 G with the tires.

rh

[anthonyvop]

The conventional wisdom which says "take off the wings and let'em race, fixing everything", a view which none other that Roger Penske latched onto during his talk with Despain last week, is not valid.

There are two banes that arise in the grip department when cars run in close proximity; disruption of airflow over the front wing and disturbances in chassis df, both in force and location of maximum pressure (somewhat similiar to pitch sensitivity in effect). A related issue is the interaction of big, soft tires and sharp front wing endplates and fences.

Get away from band-aid solutions, F1's current configuration should be studied as to what NOT to do. Shortened rear wing width, pedestal-mounted huge front wings, and diffusers (for cripes sake diffusers!) made the racing worse. I couldn't believe my eyes when this year's F1 season began.

Focus attention towards smoothing and directing airflow DOWN towards the rear, move the wings back to the canard-type location of mid-90's superspeedway wings, mandate a flat bottom with radiused sidepods, and place the sidepod exits directly to the rear. Get rid of overdependence on chassis downforce. Enable the wings to work as well or better when trailing another car, and fatten up the rubber to make up for a lower aero df percentage.

Then the cars can RACE, TOUCH, PASS, and the drivers can DRIVE once again.
:s mokin:

You can always just cut off the roof and remove the fenders of a Grand-Am Daytona Prototype.

[SportscarBruce]

I'm glad to see some ideas being tossed about, even if they don't echo my thoughts on the matter. I guess the best place to nail down the proper specs is through scale model wind tunnel testing.

One thing I'll like to ad is this; allow the driver the capability of trimming the front wing through a mechanical or electrical device. This will give him or her the
ability to compensate for front-end push while executing a pass.

[beachbum]

You can always just cut off the roof and remove the fenders of a Grand-Am Daytona Prototype.
I don't know about that. The tube frame is pretty ugly, and everyone knows the car has to "look right" or it can't be a race car. ;)

[Chamoo]

I'm glad to see some ideas being tossed about, even if they don't echo my thoughts on the matter. I guess the best place to nail down the proper specs is through scale model wind tunnel testing.

One thing I'll like to ad is this; allow the driver the capability of trimming the front wing through a mechanical or electrical device. This will give him or her the
ability to compensate for front-end push while executing a pass.

I don't know about allowing the drivers to adjust the front wing. I don't like it, and F1 drivers have said it doesn't help, and it could become dangerous.

I just don't like the idea in general as it seems like a bit of a gimmick.

And according to Barnhart, he seems like he already has 2 options in mind. I think alot of testing has already been done, not all of it, but alot. They just need to decide which direction they want to go now.

[SportscarBruce]

I have no illusions of Barnhard doing anything other than B. France did with his spec - here it is, this is my idea of what you need, take it or don't race. Aside from ALMS, race car engineering in America is definitely confined inside the box. If fact a box within a box.

[Chamoo]

I have no illusions of Barnhard doing anything other than B. France did with his spec - here it is, this is my idea of what you need, take it or don't race. Aside from ALMS, race car engineering in America is definitely confined inside the box. If fact a box within a box.

Let's give the guy a chance. All I'm hoping is for more then one chassis. The IRL seemed to back off their 1 chassis stance in recent interviews and so has Dallara.

[Hoop-98]

Just some back of the envelope snapshots of various open wheel cars.

The data on the f1 car came from Adelaide on track numbers. They likely have higher downforce configurations,

The rest are from various published sources. I have normalized all the tires to the same value to compare the relative potential corner speeds with out complicating it by such things as reds.

What I am really expressing here is the Specific Downforce of the different designs. Real cornering speeds have many other factors, like VCG etc.

http://i28.tinypic.com/291j4so.jpg

Here are some real simulations used by a F1 team to figure out the best mix of aero and fuel.

http://i25.tinypic.com/1537gxf.jpg

enjoy..

rh

[anthonyvop]

I don't know about that. The tube frame is pretty ugly, and everyone knows the car has to "look right" or it can't be a race car. ;)
I was joking.

[beachbum]

I was joking.So was I :)

[edv]

I have 2 basic things that will make me happy, regardless of the chassis choice:
1) Greatly increase horsepower
2) Require braking for every corner
This would reveal the best driver and best car, not just best aero department.

[Lousada]

This would reveal the best driver and best car, not just best aero department.

But do Penske and Ganassi really want that? They can take exclusive advantages via their aero development. Are they prepared to give that up?

[NickFalzone]

Lousada, I think they would be. Penske basically said as such on Wind Tunnel last week. They've got the money, they'll get another edge one way or another. What will prevent drivers from actually having to drive is the emphasis on safety that the IRL and in particular Barnhart has lately been focusing on. If more of the field has to brake, then more of the field is likely to wreck. And on road/streets that's part of the deal, but needing to brake on ovals is what can make that racing exciting, but also particularly unsafe. If their next cockpit design is safer than the Dallara, maybe they'd feel more comfortable with less aero, but I'd be surprised to see that happen.

[Hoop-98]

Lousada, I think they would be. Penske basically said as such on Wind Tunnel last week. They've got the money, they'll get another edge one way or another. What will prevent drivers from actually having to drive is the emphasis on safety that the IRL and in particular Barnhart has lately been focusing on. If more of the field has to brake, then more of the field is likely to wreck. And on road/streets that's part of the deal, but needing to brake on ovals is what can make that racing exciting, but also particularly unsafe. If their next cockpit design is safer than the Dallara, maybe they'd feel more comfortable with less aero, but I'd be surprised to see that happen.

Again, we haven't used brakes on Super speedways typically since the aero genie came out. You can definitely have the driver make a difference without braking on Superspeedways, it's called no minimum wing angle.

But no matter what, the Penske's and Ganassis' of the world will still dominate because they have the best people, drivers, and budgets.

The 7 post is just as much a part of oval performance as the wind tunnel.

At least those are my opinions.

rh

[chuck34]

it's called no minimum wing angle.

rh

Hoop that's what I've been asking for for a long time now. That would spice up the racing immediatly. Allow the drivers/teams to change wing angles and wicker heights, and the differences between cars would be drastic. One car might be quick right now, but use up his/her tires. Another car might be faster on longer runs, etc. You don't NEED a new chassis to spice things up, although that might help as well.

[Hoop-98]

Hoop that's what I've been asking for for a long time now. That would spice up the racing immediatly. Allow the drivers/teams to change wing angles and wicker heights, and the differences between cars would be drastic. One car might be quick right now, but use up his/her tires. Another car might be faster on longer runs, etc. You don't NEED a new chassis to spice things up, although that might help as well.

I suppose they could go to a http://i28.tinypic.com/2rw3uk1.jpg device for the high banks.

rh

[chuck34]

I suppose they could go to a http://i28.tinypic.com/2rw3uk1.jpg device for the high banks.

rh

Is that the infamous Mr. Hanford? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of him.

Side note, I heard they were running his "devices" on the Skip Barber cars down at Barber (track and series aren't related) this weekend. Go figure:-/

[Hoop-98]

Handford, they will slow them down one way or another, Although with the present engines they don't need as extreme amount of drag , perhaps a Handford Mk. IV.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Handford_Mark_5362147.aspx

rh

[chuck34]

Handford, they will slow them down one way or another, Although with the present engines they don't need as extreme amount of drag , perhaps a Handford Mk. IV.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Handford_Mark_5362147.aspx

rh

Sorry there's a "D" in there.

One of my favorite quotes of all time, I think it was Jim Hall, or at least someone like that said of the out-lawing of wheel mounted wings because of a couple of early, and spectacular failures that were quickly well understood and could have been prevented in the future, that "Newton would have barfed". I think that could be applied quite well to the whole "Handford Device" saga.

[speeddurango]

Get away from band-aid solutions, F1's current configuration should be studied as to what NOT to do. Shortened rear wing width, pedestal-mounted huge front wings, and diffusers (for cripes sake diffusers!) made the racing worse. I couldn't believe my eyes when this year's F1 season began.

That part was not agreable though, people see passings in F1 almost as difficult as ever so some failed to see what in fact works or not in the aero change this year, although what surprised me is you didn't even see any improvement in the first race even though the improvement was most notable in the first races.

F1 put a step in the right direction, and something can be learned there, but they certainly have some major work to do too.

[Hoop-98]

Just for reference:

http://i25.tinypic.com/2daemwj.jpg

rh

[Marbles]

Just for reference:

http://i25.tinypic.com/2daemwj.jpg

rh

Do you do these yourself? I wish you had posted this in the "Latest From Honda" thread. Interesting graph, to say the least.

Regarding a chassis: I wish a base cockpit\ survival cell could be mandated by the IRL which would allow a chassis to be arrived upon\designed by outside builders... within the rules of course. Can you say privateer?

Never mind...

[Hoop-98]

I try to put all my data into Excel, then you can make a Chart up, copy and paste into paint, tinypic it and this is what you get.

Since most of the Indy data is in PDF I open it in Acrobat and export into txt then import into Excel, and sometimes it's real nasty. Wish they would make their raw data available!!!!

rh

[chuck34]

Hoop wasn't there something about the caution rules changed in about '77 or '78 that might make this graph a bit misleading? Yellow vs. green speeds, etc.? That may sound snarky or something, but it is an honest question.

[Hoop-98]

Hoop wasn't there something about the caution rules changed in about '77 or '78 that might make this graph a bit misleading? Yellow vs. green speeds, etc.? That may sound snarky or something, but it is an honest question.
They got rid of the pacer system but that didn't make the leaders speed much different, I don't think. I think the criteria for calling cautions, especially debris ones, has made a difference.

rh

[Civic]

What's wrong with the mid/late 90s Champ Cars? I remember reading in Autosport how one F1 journalist said that CART had the better racing than F1. He described many close races and passing, compared to the F1 parade. He pointed out technical highlights like underbody tunnels, simpler front/rear wings, wider track, slicks, and no electronic aids.

I wonder how a car would turn out if the same chassis rules from before were kept and the designers evolved their designs within those rules.

[fan-veteran]

Michigan-2000 - one of the best oval races ever, actually it happened exactly about 9 years ago :) ; find it and watch it (if havn't done it yet )

[Hoop-98]

What's wrong with the mid/late 90s Champ Cars? I remember reading in Autosport how one F1 journalist said that CART had the better racing than F1. He described many close races and passing, compared to the F1 parade. He pointed out technical highlights like underbody tunnels, simpler front/rear wings, wider track, slicks, and no electronic aids.

I wonder how a car would turn out if the same chassis rules from before were kept and the designers evolved their designs within those rules.

I think chassis wise, that is the 97-03 IRL car Civic...

[Civic]

I think chassis wise, that is the 97-03 IRL car Civic...

It was definitely a Reynard that he was referring to. Mark Blundell's Motorola car was used as the article's photo. Blundell's close win over de Ferran and some of Zanardi's passes were mentioned in the article. Supposedly those Champ Cars at the time weren't really bothered following in the wake of another Champ Car unlike the Grand Prix cars of the time.

[Civic]

Michigan-2000 - one of the best oval races ever, actually it happened exactly about 9 years ago :) ; find it and watch it (if havn't done it yet )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dJvOZ6_Kic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v51T0SUbq8M

[wedge]

By the late 90s CART too was having major problems

1-mile short tracks in particular. I remember 1 race at Nazareth when they experimented with the superspeedway wings and it didn't work, cars with no downforce spun off at turn 3 trying to make a pass.

Also tried out the Handford device on road courses and they weren't very effective.

[nigelred5]

You can always just cut off the roof and remove the fenders of a Grand-Am Daytona Prototype.

I don't know about the grand am cars, but something like the Peugeot lemans prototypes running fenderless and topless sounds like an evening at the moulin rouge.

What I find most frustrating is we have chassis designs that are both safe and provided incredible racing that were abandoned by CART teams every year in the 1990's. Just get Lola to start cranking out 93 Lolas again.

[wedge]

What I find most frustrating is we have chassis designs that are both safe and provided incredible racing that were abandoned by CART teams every year in the 1990's. Just get Lola to start cranking out 93 Lolas again.

Because of the intense competition between the chassis suppliers, particularly Penske since they built their own cars in their heyday they were the cars to beat becauase they brought updates every other race.

Going back to LMPs as an example, Audi brought out the R10 and then the R15 in quick succession compared to the R8 because of competition betweem Peugeot.

[nigelred5]

Yeah, remember the great competetion that resulted in the constant updates and new chassis every year. I guess what I was trying to say is pick even just one of them and USE IT! The racing was far better in almost every aspect in that era, even amongst the same cars. Pick one of the years when the Reynard and Lola were closest in performance and build new ones. I think they simply need to leave the teams alone to develop what they want. I'll even admit that in an effort to bring fairness to the new teams, the racing has suffered to an extent since the ex-champcar teams were brought in. Especially on the ovals where the league changes have totally screwed the very racing that used to be their hallmark. The oval racing this year has just plain sucked and a return to ovals after the mergification was what I looked forward to the most.

[V12]

What I find most frustrating is we have chassis designs that are both safe and provided incredible racing that were abandoned by CART teams every year in the 1990's. Just get Lola to start cranking out 93 Lolas again.

I never found that frustrating, in fact I miss those days, when the cars at least looked *slightly* different year on year, OK admittedly not by much but still at least we didn't have the same car for 3 years in a row or whatever (isn't it 7 years now with the current IndyCars?).

And more importantly, the cars looked different from other cars competing in the same race!!

[Chamoo]

I never found that frustrating, in fact I miss those days, when the cars at least looked *slightly* different year on year, OK admittedly not by much but still at least we didn't have the same car for 3 years in a row or whatever (isn't it 7 years now with the current IndyCars?).

And more importantly, the cars looked different from other cars competing in the same race!!

Add to that, you had the option for smaller teams to buy year old chassis from the top teams which would add some smaller teams to the fold.

[nigelred5]

They have that option now, but they are more likely beat down several year old versions of the same chassis. Ask some of the ex ccws teams what they thought of some of the old eQuipment they got.

When I said frustrating, I meant the fact that everyone keeps talking about needing a chassis designthat does A, b, and C, and allows x,y,and z. Those chassis and engine designs already exist, just build NEW ones! No re-invention of the wheel is necessary.

He'll, the dags and chassis engineers probably still have their data and set up sheets!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Taking 93 Lolas and putting them on the track will last ooohh...about a year and we will be heading right back where we are. The teams will improve the cars but make them more aero dependent. I don't want to see the series mandating progress either.

I vote for radically removing the aero off the cars. Aero creates wake turbulence and aero means aero push. Make a car rely on mechanical grip and you put racing back in the hands of the men driving the cars ( and women ). They have to brake for more corners, which increases passing opportunities and less aero means more car control rewarding skilled wheelmen.

Will it be slower? Yup. Will it be more dangerous? Maybe a few more crashes but not necessarily more dangerous because safety isn't dependent on wings, it is dependent on cockpit design and building that capsule around the driver. That we must never stop working on.

Giving us 93 Lolas wont work because the safety isn't there compared to today's car and the teams will go right back down the road of making these cars as undrivable as the current car.

[Hoop-98]

First off, 93-95 Lolas have a lot in common aero wise with 1997-2003 IndyCars.

Here is a good discussion of many issues, a bit old and lots (to say the least) has changed but the fundamentals are the same.

http://www.autoracing1.com/MarkC/000801AeroProposal.htm

rh

[nigelred5]

They produced good racing every where they went which is what I want to see a return to.

[CCWS77]

So should race cars accelerate, brake, maybe even skid with different cars having different speeds and advantages on different parts of the racecourse and use different strategies and setups? The conventional wisdom has been fans want to see cars all going at the same speed in close pack racing.

You guys have a lot of good ideas on technical changes to make that change. The problem is, I don't think the fundamental obstacle is technical. It is a philosophical choice of what the racing is supposed to look like. The current rules and car are designed to work one way and I don't have your faith that whoever is running the IRL is going to actually reverse this philosophical position - even with a new car or new manufacturer involvement.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So should race cars accelerate, brake, maybe even skid with different cars having different speeds and advantages on different parts of the racecourse and use different strategies and setups? The conventional wisdom has been fans want to see cars all going at the same speed in close pack racing.

You guys have a lot of good ideas on technical changes to make that change. The problem is, I don't think the fundamental obstacle is technical. It is a philosophical choice of what the racing is supposed to look like. The current rules and car are designed to work one way and I don't have your faith that whoever is running the IRL is going to actually reverse this philosophical position - even with a new car or new manufacturer involvement.

CCWS, it is complicated by the success of NASCAR. It is pack racing in a sense and a lot of people think the OW version of that works. I think to some fans it might, but I think us OW fans are looking for something different.

[CCWS77]

My point is that many seem to think certain technical changes or even manufacturer involvement solves this. That won't make a difference if the overarching philosophy of those making the rules hasn't changed

[Hoop-98]

CCWS, IndyCars obviously brake and accelerate on Road Courses, On Super Speedways no one has since the early 80s.

On miles ChampCars were flat in the 90s and when they took away the downforce it was a disaster, not to say they couldn't have worked it out, but they didn't.

The DP01 was faster at high speed tracks because you did not have to lift in many sections that you had to lift in the Lola. At common tracks the Dallara has to brake and slow then accelerate more than the DP01 because it has lower specific downforce.

So why does this seem to be such a sudden new thing when it has been around during the "golden years"?

http://i25.tinypic.com/2jblam8.jpg

Note how the faster car with better grip doesn't lift. And yet many praise the higher downforce cars as better, very confusing. The bottom trace is the throttle trace on the loweer downforce car thru a high speed sweeper. Notice the top trace is flat.

rh

[CCWS77]

I was not trying to claim this trend was "new" nor I am disputing which technical changes might result in better racing. The idea of managed, regulated or designed outcomes is the primary reason I have not been a big motorsports fan for alot of my lifetime. I became a bigger fan when I sensed a trend away from that and found some racing series which I could follow which were not like that. Perhaps that was an illusion because as far as I can tell, that movement or sentiment has been killed and thus my interest in racing is waning.

This thread seems based on the idea that some technical changes can fix that broken philosophy of managed outcomes. I do not see it. Even if the technical change has the desired effect, that is nothing but a bandaid on the issue which can be reversed with some backdoor rule that probably wont even be published for fans. Furthermore, fans constantly insisting that what is really wrong is lack of variation on the starting grid will only serve to make those who constantly work to control the outcome interfere in the rules even MORE. More disparity at the start is not the solution to defeat the idea of a managed outcome, they will just work twice as hard or twice as secretly to achieve it (GrandAm?!)

[Jag_Warrior]

Hoop, can you do a mini compare & contrast on the IRL car and the most recent GP2 car? Not that I'm suggesting that the GP2 car is THE answer. But as I've been trying to catch up on GP2 races to make some room on Mr. Tivo, at least on road courses, it seems like they've gotten something right with the GP2 formula. Or maybe it's the drivers, or the fact that they don't run for fuel mileage or that they have very few yellows/safety periods. I don't know. But since both cars are made by Dallara, I just wondered about the two.

This is a decent summary that I found of the GP2 model:


The feeder series founded in 2005 by F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone and Renault chief Flavio Briatore runs identical Dallara chassis powered by 580hp 4-liter Renault V8s shared across the board by all 13 two-car teams.

The new Dallara GP2/08, which will remain in place over the next three seasons before replacement, was the only non-F1 car to pass the full 2007 FIA crash tests. Introduced over a two-day test session at the Paul Ricard circuit in France this past weekend, the 2008 model features a number of updates, primarily focused on aerodynamics. Although most of the 26 cars ran largely without problems, a few cars revealed extra strain on the front suspension and steering assembly as a result of the new aero package.

Could the new IRL car be some enhanced version of this car?

[Hoop-98]

The main thing to take from this or any car is IMO of course more undertray, less wing.

I was at the INDY museum yesterday looking at the 95 Lola and the other cars in the evolution of the series. What stuck in my mind is the cycle of innovation and rule change to thwart that innovation. Big wings sprout, then become small wings etc..

In the late 90s we restricted the tunnel exits and that idea has carried over into the IRL cars, though to a lesser extent. This was to counter the annual advances in aero.

Without that competition between makes I think Dallara or anyone for that matter will go in this direction.

One somewhat radical idea Handford had was a wing with minimal lift ~200 lbs, that actually improved grip in a wake.

But with a single make series, you design the car to do what you want it to, not to fit in a rules box designed to hamper performance.

The GP2/0x is also designed to appeal. look like a F1 car, this isn't a design objective here.

Whatever criteria the series decides on it shouldn't be a monumental task to improve performance and control costs in a single chassis series. Swift has done a good job of this and I am sure Dallara can too.

I realize I didn't answer your question directly jag, but I think they would rather go with a substantially new design, not enhance a GP2-0x.

The car should:
1. Look fresh but purposeful.
2. Be of similar dimension, but perhaps lighter (150 would be nice)
3. Be safe!
4. Be cost effective to purchase and repair.
5. Lap 5 pct quicker on Road Courses with 700-750 HP.
6. Be easy to work on
7. Have customizable undertrays for 3 downworce configurations.

Something like that!


rh

[V12]

I just want to see a set of technical regulations drawn up and let whoever wants to build a car meeting them to be able to do so, I don't like this idea of a spec chassis being designed with things like looks and quality of racing in mind. To be honest any racing car which is designed with any other objective than to be quicker than the opposition just leaves a horrible sick feeling in the pit of my stomach :(

[garyshell]

I just want to see a set of technical regulations drawn up and let whoever wants to build a car meeting them to be able to do so, I don't like this idea of a spec chassis being designed with things like looks and quality of racing in mind. To be honest any racing car which is designed with any other objective than to be quicker than the opposition just leaves a horrible sick feeling in the pit of my stomach :(


Affordability be damned, huh? Maybe that's not so much an objective as a constraint, but as they say at the end of "Little Steven's Underground Garage" show each week: "It's time to face stupid reality again."

We learned the lesson of speed being the only objective back in the Can-Am days, when the equation became one of cubic dollars and cubic inches. Or at least I thought we had until the IMSA days when again the costs skyrocketed. And now this sort of sentiment seems to be back. So maybe we haven't learned the lesson at all.

Gary

[CCWS77]

I just want to see a set of technical regulations drawn up and let whoever wants to build a car meeting them to be able to do so, I don't like this idea of a spec chassis being designed with things like looks and quality of racing in mind. To be honest any racing car which is designed with any other objective than to be quicker than the opposition just leaves a horrible sick feeling in the pit of my stomach :(
I just don't see how if you have a SPEC or if you instead have every car on the grid totally custom designed- I don't see how there is any difference whatsoever between the racing product of the two when you have burecrats in charge of the rulebook with the idea doing whatever it takes to make the outcome be a managed side by side finish. A rocket ship racing against a bicycle can be managed and regulated to be the same speed if you come up with enough interesting rules for the competition. Diversity on the starting grid doesn't address it whatsoever so IMHO you get sick over the wrong thing if you actually care about there being a genuine competition of some kind.

[Hoop-98]

I just don't see how if you have a SPEC or if you instead have every car on the grid totally custom designed- I don't see how there is any difference whatsoever between the racing product of the two when you have burecrats in charge of the rulebook with the idea doing whatever it takes to make the outcome be a managed side by side finish. A rocket ship racing against a bicycle can be managed and regulated to be the same speed if you come up with enough interesting rules for the competition. Diversity on the starting grid doesn't address it whatsoever so IMHO you get sick over the wrong thing if you actually care about there being a genuine competition of some kind.


CCWS, for my clarification purposes. What professional series did you enjoy that didn't have all this management and bureaucracy?

rh

[CCWS77]

Well are you really asking me to spell out which series seem to manage the outcome and which don't? obviously NASCAR does and the IRL seems to have originally been modeled on that. F1 does too, they just bury their management in a mountain of paperwork and legalese and fans buy this for some reason. GrandAm is just awful with race to race rules changes based on the outcome of the prior race.

I think Champ Car had a lot less of this - actually less then CART. I know people want to complain Champ Car was only ever a minor version of CART but if what had been cut out is all this BS then im fine with that. I just don't understand why people even care about the kind of vehicle showing up to race if you can't trust the integrity of the rules and process used to decide the winner.

[NickFalzone]

CCWS, in what way(s) are the integrity of the rules in the IRL and NASCAR unfair to the paying fans? Specifically, what aspecs of Champ Car's rules (which I did not watch) were superior to these series?

[Hoop-98]

Well are you really asking me to spell out which series seem to manage the outcome and which don't? obviously NASCAR does and the IRL seems to have originally been modeled on that. F1 does too, they just bury their management in a mountain of paperwork and legalese and fans buy this for some reason. GrandAm is just awful with race to race rules changes based on the outcome of the prior race.

I think Champ Car had a lot less of this - actually less then CART. I know people want to complain Champ Car was only ever a minor version of CART but if what had been cut out is all this BS then im fine with that. I just don't understand why people even care about the kind of vehicle showing up to race if you can't trust the integrity of the rules and process used to decide the winner.

I see, CART (the home of the Circus Clown, variable Pop offs, the Austrailian wait till Andretti runs out then throw the flag, the banned Lola, the porsche, the Franchise System) I could go on forever!!!!!!

Champcar with the 5 minute post race techs that had the Teams screaming...

I am speechless....Thats some dayuum good koolaid...

;n)

[garyshell]

Well are you really asking me to spell out which series seem to manage the outcome and which don't? obviously NASCAR does and the IRL seems to have originally been modeled on that. F1 does too, they just bury their management in a mountain of paperwork and legalese and fans buy this for some reason. GrandAm is just awful with race to race rules changes based on the outcome of the prior race.

I think Champ Car had a lot less of this - actually less then CART. I know people want to complain Champ Car was only ever a minor version of CART but if what had been cut out is all this BS then im fine with that. I just don't understand why people even care about the kind of vehicle showing up to race if you can't trust the integrity of the rules and process used to decide the winner.


Leaves me asking, OK which ones didn't/don't?

Gary