Comparing Indy to Texas

[Hoop-98]

Many people lump all Indycar oval racing into one bucket.

I have a little calculator I made to help me understand track differences.

Basically banking converts some of the lateral force into 'downward force". Originally I think Indy banking was to make 60 MPH corners relatively neutral.

Corner speed is limited by the tires ability to overcome the cars lateral force parallel to the track surface.

Indy tires can generate about 1.45 times more force than the weight they carry ( generalization ). So with no down force on a flat surface we could get about 1.45 G's. (Not exact as tire grip varies with compound surface etc..)

Below is a comparison of Indy and Texas with this 1.45 Tire grip used for both. This is not meant to be exactly what runs at Indy, but in the ball park, what counts is the difference in the 2 tracks.

In the Indy model with 1800 pounds of DF we are barely on the safe side.

At Texas if we had 0 DF we would run out of grip in the mid 240s so we add drag with a minimum wing angle to slow the car, but unless we made the wings generate lift we would have to kill more power to get speeds in the >230 range. In effect at texas at 220 MPH we have 5200 pounds of "downforce" from the track bank vs 2750 at Indy.

It is the track, not the car that is mandating flat to the floor racing on the high banks.

Enjoy...

http://i46.tinypic.com/357klys.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/2moxzdh.jpg

rh

[speeddurango]

The car should not be totally acquitted though. Do remember the first few years at the high banking track where though they were flat, they were able to slingshot pass each other, unlike now. Can you shed some light on this?

[Hoop-98]

The car should not be totally acquitted though. Do remember the first few years at the high banking track where though they were flat, they were able to slingshot pass each other, unlike now. Can you shed some light on this?

More power, more variables (engines, chassis etc..), games with rear wings that have been taken care of, would be my guess...

rh

[anthonyvop]

There is only one sure way to guarantee the end of flat-out, all the way around racing.......

[Hoop-98]

There is only one sure way to guarantee the end of flat-out, all the way around racing.......

like a moth to the flame, he can't mind his own interests...

[Mark in Oshawa]

like a moth to the flame, he can't mind his own interests...

I am not sure where he is heading, but I am sure we will find out.

Hoop, it is my contention that there has to be a way to take out the downforce and force the guys to slow down going into corners. Either that, or give them less power? I just don't like the foot to the floor stuff. Texas works in NASCAR because a Cup Car will not take more than a lap on fresh rubber with the foot to the mat. The lack of grip and downforce with the high power means the cars have to be driven.

I don't know what combination of factors one has to put together, but THAT is the goal or kind of racing I hope to see...

[Hoop-98]

Not gonna happen at Texas. Kentucky, Chicagoland, and Kansas need some downforce with modern tires, maybe 1000-1500 lbs.

If you ran the Indy setup with no minimum Wing Angle and 600 HP you might get there.

The cars have been able to make full throttle laps at High Banked 1.5's, plus Michigan, Indy, and Fontana pretty much since 1980 or before.

Once the power got too high they could never agree how to reduce it so we got the Handford air brake but that just led to fuel economy races with furious slingshotting at the end.

About 10 years ago we experimented with speedway wings on short tracks and boy did that suck. They couldn't run within 15 lengths of each other

Hey I have an idea, go to the museum and take all the tires off of the post 1980 cars. Keep trying them until you have to lift, tell Firestone make me some of those.

Seriously, as long as you have any downforce on the car they will not want to follow another one, see NASCAR.

The cars are good at Motegi, and Homestead, you need to drive there.

Take the minimum wing angle away at Kentucky, Kansas, and Chicagoland, and test, may not work.

Here is a look at Kentucky...

http://i47.tinypic.com/2q9yvy9.jpg

Texas is our "plate" track, not much you can do there.

The thing is, no one really griped about being flat out at Indy, Fontana, Michigan for 25 years, then suddenly it's the holy grail.


rh

[Mark in Oshawa]

Not gonna happen at Texas. Kentucky, Chicagoland, and Kansas need some downforce with modern tires, maybe 1000-1500 lbs.

If you ran the Indy setup with no minimum Wing Angle and 600 HP you might get there.

The cars have been able to make full throttle laps at High Banked 1.5's, plus Michigan, Indy, and Fontana pretty much since 1980 or before.

Once the power got too high they could never agree how to reduce it so we got the Handford air brake but that just led to fuel economy races with furious slingshotting at the end.

About 10 years ago we experimented with speedway wings on short tracks and boy did that suck. They couldn't run within 15 lengths of each other

Hey I have an idea, go to the museum and take all the tires off of the post 1980 cars. Keep trying them until you have to lift, tell Firestone make me some of those.

Seriously, as long as you have any downforce on the car they will not want to follow another one, see NASCAR.

The cars are good at Motegi, and Homestead, you need to drive there.

Take the minimum wing angle away at Kentucky, Kansas, and Chicagoland, and test, may not work.

Here is a look at Kentucky...

http://i47.tinypic.com/2q9yvy9.jpg

Texas is our "plate" track, not much you can do there.

The thing is, no one really griped about being flat out at Indy, Fontana, Michigan for 25 years, then suddenly it's the holy grail.


rh

I was never a big fan of Fontana or Indy Actually Hoop, I loved the early 90's car on flat tracks like Phoenix or New Hampshire. Watching Nigel and PT going at it in 92 at New Hampshire was the best oval race I have ever seen.........Somewhere there is a balance point, but It seems they just cannot find it...

[NickFalzone]

How does Kentucky compare to Texas, banking-wise? And other variables, like quality of surface, etc.? Because I'm with the camp that the indycars on high banked tracks is a total borefest, perhaps even worse than the thin roadcourse tracks that are parades. I still wonder if Kentucky was a fluke last season. because Chicagoland was so-so, and Homestead was basically the same old. To me the most glaring difference is comparing IRL and NASCAR at a place like Richmond, where NASCAR has had some very exciting races recently, and the IRL has literally been so bad that they're not bringing the series back. I know people inside the IRL say that the aero adjustments will help, but I can't say that I'm totally confident their new aero adjustments will make any difference at all at a high bank like Texas.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How does Kentucky compare to Texas, banking-wise? And other variables, like quality of surface, etc.? Because I'm with the camp that the indycars on high banked tracks is a total borefest, perhaps even worse than the thin roadcourse tracks that are parades. I still wonder if Kentucky was a fluke last season. because Chicagoland was so-so, and Homestead was basically the same old. To me the most glaring difference is comparing IRL and NASCAR at a place like Richmond, where NASCAR has had some very exciting races recently, and the IRL has literally been so bad that they're not bringing the series back. I know people inside the IRL say that the aero adjustments will help, but I can't say that I'm totally confident their new aero adjustments will make any difference at all at a high bank like Texas.

Nick, Hoop will give you the hard and fast answers, but I believe Texas has higher banking than Kentucky's progressive banking and shorter straights. It drive's different. If the guys are passing, it is all slingshot's like the CART guys did at Michigan years ago with the Handford. Funny....their crowds started to go away in the late 90's and yet the best racing that track saw in terms of lead changes and wild finishes was in this era, and it was not drawing the fans. I think ISC didn't go out of their way to promote things and the CART promotions relied too much on their member tracks at this point, but I do know the racing Scott keeps thinking America needs was there, and the fans were coming back less and less....

[Hoop-98]

How does Kentucky compare to Texas, banking-wise? And other variables, like quality of surface, etc.? Because I'm with the camp that the indycars on high banked tracks is a total borefest, perhaps even worse than the thin roadcourse tracks that are parades. I still wonder if Kentucky was a fluke last season. because Chicagoland was so-so, and Homestead was basically the same old. To me the most glaring difference is comparing IRL and NASCAR at a place like Richmond, where NASCAR has had some very exciting races recently, and the IRL has literally been so bad that they're not bringing the series back. I know people inside the IRL say that the aero adjustments will help, but I can't say that I'm totally confident their new aero adjustments will make any difference at all at a high bank like Texas.

Texas specs are above in the thread. Notice you need zero DF to lap 225 at Texas..1500 at Kentucky...in these models. That's the big difference.

rh

[NickFalzone]

Mark that dropoff may be true, but my guess is that it's coincidental. Certainly i doubt that less people were going to the races after they noticed the actual racing not more exciting. Maybe the quality of the racing from 98-02 didn't provide the uptick in attendance one would expect, but as I said, there were probably other factors in play at the time. I believe that if the IRL could consistently put on a great on-track product for several years in a row, the fans would start coming back. The expectation with these cars is less bumping, but a speedier and more nimble version of NASCAR racing. Currently they do not look much faster, nor more nimble on the ovals, they just look like clunky cookie cutter formula cars running around in a single file, with the occasional pass around lapped traffic. I think that the expectations of the casual sports/race fan is higher than it used to be, and putting on the same old show (or worse) is simply not enough. The IRL had a few exciting races last year, no doubt. And I like the series, but I see a lot of reasons why it is still stuck in this rut.

[NickFalzone]

Texas specs are above in the thread. Notice you need zero DF to lap 225 at Texas..1500 at Kentucky...in these models. That's the big difference.

rh

Hoop, probably a stupid question, but isn't downforce required somewhat related to tire grip? In other words, could Firestone make a Texas tire that had significantly less grip, and thus required downforce to be added to the cars?

[Hoop-98]

Hoop, probably a stupid question, but isn't downforce required somewhat related to tire grip? In other words, could Firestone make a Texas tire that had significantly less grip, and thus required downforce to be added to the cars?

Theoretically yes, but never happen and likely impractical.

rh

[NickFalzone]

Theoretically yes, but never happen and likely impractical.

rh

why? I certainly don't want to make the racing unsafe, but let's be honest, the racing at Texas the last few years has been pretty dull.

[Hoop-98]

why? I certainly don't want to make the racing unsafe, but let's be honest, the racing at Texas the last few years has been pretty dull.

I just think it is to much of a stretch, too different a tire, possible liabilities that Firestone doesn't want.

Better to wait till the next car go round.

rh

[anthonyvop]

like a moth to the flame, he can't mind his own interests...

And you are an expert on my interests?

[chuck34]

why? I certainly don't want to make the racing unsafe, but let's be honest, the racing at Texas the last few years has been pretty dull.

I bolded the key word for you there, unsafe. If you take grip out of the tires, especially if you broadcast that change "for the sake of racing", and God forbid something happened ... the IRL, Firestone, Texas management, and anyone who ever looked at a car sideways is now open for lawsuits. It's a sad fact, but lawyers are what drive so many decisions in our sport, and country as a whole.

[ShiftingGears]

I bolded the key word for you there, unsafe. If you take grip out of the tires, especially if you broadcast that change "for the sake of racing", and God forbid something happened ... the IRL, Firestone, Texas management, and anyone who ever looked at a car sideways is now open for lawsuits. It's a sad fact, but lawyers are what drive so many decisions in our sport, and country as a whole.

If there were harder tyres there would be lower cornering speeds and therefore the racing would be less dangerous. Especially considering that harder tyres produce less marbles off the racing line.

[chuck34]

If there were harder tyres there would be lower cornering speeds and therefore the racing would be less dangerous. Especially considering that harder tyres produce less marbles off the racing line.

But less grip means more potential for complete loss of adheasion (spinning out of control). That causes more accidents, etc., etc.

And besides that, have you ever talked to a lawyer? They can twist anything, anyway they want.

Oh, and harder tires don't necessarily equate to less marbles. It can, but not in all situations. Tire wear is a VERY complicated animal.

[Hoop-98]

When I calculate these things I cross check my calculations with what I see on track. I mean that the G's I calculate are about what we see from the broadcast. I am reasonably sure my measurements are pretty good approximations for the actual speeds they are running but may not be so accurate when doing theoretical what if's.

I mention this because I calculate the current car without a high drag package would likely lap Texas around 235 or more and still not lifting.

I just don't see them playing with fire there.

But I think a lighter less powerful car could perform better on Road Courses and be safe enough to remove the drag package (mandate rear wing elements and angles) everywhere but Texas.

The tweaks may improve things, we are not a lot different than when they raced pretty well there (Texas), so I'll wait and see...

rh

[ShiftingGears]

But less grip means more potential for complete loss of adheasion (spinning out of control). That causes more accidents, etc., etc.

True.


And besides that, have you ever talked to a lawyer? They can twist anything, anyway they want.

I don't doubt that.


Oh, and harder tires don't necessarily equate to less marbles. It can, but not in all situations. Tire wear is a VERY complicated animal.

True - my comment was poorly phrased - more explicitly I think IndyCar can implement tyres with compositions that don't produce as much marbles, considering it is a control tyre series.

I think Indycar needs to get rid of the wings. It would be a radical new change and it would increase passing opportunities.

[Hoop-98]

CART took that path for the short ovals at the end of the 90's. They put the speedway wings on the cars for the short ovals thinking the loss of downforce would make for better racing.

It was pretty much a disaster. Mark Handford was involved and he is a pretty sharp guy (IMO).

The cars could not get near each other in a corner and the experiment came to a rapid conclusion.

I think his feeling, and I am paraphrasing here, was the problem was lack of testing.



Any ideas, and there are far more knowledgeable people than me (a huge understatement) having them would need to be evaluated and tested using CFD, Wind Tunnel and on track testing.

CART was at it's peak at this time and couldn't make that happen.

I think this level of effort would be better served on the next generation car. That of course, is just my opinion.

rh

[fan-veteran]

Hard tyres with less adhesion (and NO marbles please!), small wings and less downforce, a lot of power and high speeds on straights .... :)